Full text of "U.S. nonproliferation policy : hearing before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, November 10, 1993"

See other formats

U.S. NONPROUFERATION POUCY

y4.F76/l;N73/4

U.S. Honproliferation Policy, 103-1...

BEFORE THE

COMMITTBE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 10, 1993

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

May

^ 193^

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-043 CC WASHINGTON : 1994

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-043685-0

(\^ U.S. NONPROUFERATION POUCY

V4,F 76/1 :N 73/4

U.S. Honproliferation Policy/ 103-1...

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEB ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 10, 1993

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

"-"^i^iCi

May

^m^

''«'?*?>,

/'t'^^.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
7&-043CC WASHINGTON : 1994

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office. Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-043685-0

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

LEE H. HAMILTON,

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

HOWARD L. HERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

HARRY JOHNSTON, Florida

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
ERIC FINGERHUT, Ohio
PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN, Maryland
DON EDWARDS, California
FRANK MCCLOSKEY, Indiana
THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois

Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. OILMAN, New York
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
TOBY ROTH, Wisconsin
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
HENRY J. HYDE, Ilhnois
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
JAN MEYERS, Kansas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
DAVID A. LEVY, New York
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida
EDWARD R. ROYCE. California

Michael H. Van Dusen, Chief of Staff
Richard J. Gabon, Minority Chief of Staff

(II)

CONTENTS

FOREIGN AID REFORM

Page

WITNESSES

Hon. Lynn E. Davis, Under Secretary for International Security Affairs, De-
partment of State 1

Bill Clements, Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, Depart-
ment of Commerce 36

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Hon. Lynn E. Davis 49

Norman Wulf, Acting Assistant Director, U.S. Arms Control and Disar-
mament Agency 68

APPENDIX
Questions submitted for the record and responses thereto 78

(III)

U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1993

House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in room
2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lee H. Hamilton
(chairmEin) presiding.

Chairman Hamilton. The committee will please come to order.
Today's hearing focuses on U.S. nonproliferation policy.

We are pleased to have as our witness the Honorable Lynn
Davis, Under Secretary for International Security Affairs at the
Department of State. Secretary Davis is accompanied by Paul
Gebhard, Director for Policy Planning and Regional Strategies at
the Department of Defense; Bill Clements, Acting Assistant Sec-
retary for Export Administration at the Department of Commerce;
Victor Alessi, Director of the Office of Arms Control and Non-
proliferation at the Department of Energy; and Norman Wulf, Act-
ing Assistant Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agen-
cy.

In his September 27 speech at the U.N., President Clinton high-
lighted U.S. nonproliferation policy as one of the most urgent prior-
ities of his administration.

We are anxious to receive a more thorough description of the
goals of the new nonproliferation policy and to hear from each
agency concerning their plans to implement and achieve these
goals.

Secretary Davis and gentlemen, we welcome you. I am advised
that Secretary Davis has an opening statement.

Ms. Davis. I have a brief opening and a longer statement which
I would like to put into the record, but I would hope that we would
have time to share conversation about our goals and our objectives.

Chairman Hamilton. That is fine.

Your statement, of course, will be entered into the record in full
and we look forward to your testimony and the testimony of your
colleagues.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN E DAVIS, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Ms. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
very much for the opportunity to appear before your committee to
discuss an issue of great importance to the Clinton administration.
As you and your committee appreciate, nonproliferation is the arms

(1)

control priority of the post-cold war world. The proliferation of dan-
gerous weapons represents the most critical security threat we
face. As a result, the Clinton administration is placing a very high
priority on nonproliferation.

Let me briefly describe the Clinton administration's nonprolifera-
tion agenda which spans the whole range of proliferation dangers
and which we are pursuing with a global diplomatic effort.

SITUATION IN THE NTS

Secretary Christopher recently returned from a visit, a trip to
Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus. In addition to pledging
U.S. support for democratic reform. Secretary Christopher focused
on the nuclear danger and our goal to prevent the threats posed
from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The United States and Russia now as partners are consulting
very closely on the goals of negotiating as quickly as possible a
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, achieving the indefinite extension
of the Nonproliferation Treaty, a global ban cutting off the produc-
tion of fissile material for nuclear weapons purposes, and the elimi-
nation of chemical weapons. In Moscow, we worked together to en-
sure a smooth entry into force of the bilateral Missile Technology
Control Regime agreement.

Kazakhstan committed to accede to the NPT as a nonnuclear
weapons state by the end of this year. In Ukraine, President
Kravchuk reaffirmed the goal of a nonnuclear Ukraine and his per-
sonal commitment to ratify the START Treaty and to accede to the
NPT as a nonnuclear weapons state. He made clear that the Lisbon
Protocol covers all nuclear weapons in the Ukraine, including the
SS-24 missiles.

But much remains to be done, Mr, Chairman, particularly on the
3,000 former Soviet nuclear warheads that need to be eliminated
from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. The United States is
working actively to facilitate agreements to transfer all these nu-
clear warheads to Russia for dismantling and to provide compensa-
tion for the highly enriched uranium in tnem.

Through the Nunn-Lugar program, we will assist in the elimi-
nation of strategic offensive arms in all four states. Such assistance
is already flowing to Russia and Belarus and we aim to put the
necessary agreements in place with Ukraine and Kazakhstan in
the coming weeks. To prevent these Nations from becoming a
source of dangerous arms and technologies, we are working with
them to establish effective export control systems.

Our activities in the Newly Independent States demonstrate the
many diverse elements which constitute the Clinton administra-
tion's overall nonproliferation policy. Let me describe our overall
goals with respect to our nonproliferation policy.

PROGRESS TOWARD COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN

The spread of nuclear weapons is clearly the greatest prolifera-
tion danger we face. Our foremostgoal is universal NPT member-
ship. We are actively urging all NPT parties to join us in extending
the Nonproliferation Treaty indefinitely and unconditionally in
1995. And I can report to you, Mr. Chairman, that support is grow-
ing for these goals.

The Clinton administration has announced two critical initiatives
in support of our overall nuclear nonproliferation strategy: To
achieve a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by 1996, and to
put in place a global convention cutting off production of fissile ma-
terial for nuclear weapons purposes.

I can report again momentum toward a CTBT is growing. Last
summer, the Conference on Disarmament reached consensus on be-
ginning formal negotiations in Geneva in January of 1994.

Since then, we nave made good progress on drafting a specific
CD negotiating mandate for the Conference on Disarmament. And
in addition, in New York at the Greneral Assembly, for the first
time, Mr. Chairman, we will achieve a consensus resolution sup-
porting test ban negotiations. So we see movement and momentum
toward a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

NORTH KOREA

But we also need measures to strengthen the global nuclear non-
proliferation regime with a regional focus. And here let me describe
to you briefly one particular area of concern and one particular set
of policies that are very important to our administration. And this
has to do with North Korea.

President Clinton made clear that North Korea cannot be al-
lowed to develop a nuclear bomb. We are thus working very closely
with the IAEA, with Japan, South Korea, and other interested par-
ties to bring North Korea into compliance with all of its inter-
national obligations. This is not an easy process but we remain
committed to our goal of having North Korea comply with its safe-
guards obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty and imple-
ment the North-South Denuclearization Declaration.

Recent North Korean behavior has been disappointing. The Unit-
ed States has made clear its readiness to address legitimate North
Korean concerns. But unless the North Koreans take the necessary
steps to persuade the world community that it is not pursuing a
nuclear weapons option, we will have no choice but to end our bi-
lateral dialogue with North Korea and pursue further steps in the
United Nations Security Council.

EXPORT CONTROLS

Let me turn then briefly to a number of other initiatives and
raise with you our goal and the progress we have made with re-
spect to tightening export controls to prevent the spread of the ma-
terials necessary to produce chemical and biological weapons.

With respect to missile proliferation, the multilateral Missile
Technology Control Regime will continue to be the primary tool of
U.S. missile nonproliferation policy. It works and has enjoyed sev-
eral recent successes which this committee has learned about
through our past consultations.

In South Africa, Argentina, Hungary and in Russia we are
achieving successes with respect to the flow of missiles and missile
technology. We now intend to move the regime into the future, be-
yond a group of responsible suppliers that seeks to ensure that its
own industries do not inadvertently contribute to missile prolifera-
tion, to a group that works actively together to deal with the mis-
sile proliferation problem worldwide. We have also demonstrated

that we are prepared to pursue our nonproliferation goals vigor-
ously even when such efforts involve sanctions and may risk fric-
tions in critical bilateral relationships.

Again, moving rather quickly, but to point out the breadth and
range of the Clinton administration's overall nonproliferation poli-
cies, we are in the process of reorienting export controls in the
post-cold war world to meet the new dangers and security concerns
that we see in the world that we now live in. »

SUCCESSOR TO COCOM

There is general agreement that the COCOM controls on trade
with Russia and the other states of the former Warsaw Pact should
be phased out and a partnership offered to Russia and other Newly
Independent States in a new regime. The partnership will be based
on clearly defined criteria concerning adherence to export controls
and nonproliferation norms. We and our allies are discussing now
how best to structure a new regime in partnership with Russia and
the other Newly Independent States to enhance transparency and
coordination of controls on exports of arms and sensitive dual-use
and military technologies. Our approach is multilateral, focused on
new dangers, and particularly focused on the dangers we see in
Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea.

BROAD VIEW OF U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY

Again, all too briefly, Mr. Chairman, I have gone through the
various elements of our overall nonproliferation policy. Let me con-
clude by a few observations with respect to how to think about our
nonproliferation goals in the new world.

We very much appreciate the complex nature of the task of pro-
moting nonproliferation. It is not simply stopping the flow of tech-
nologies, weapons, or hardware. Ratner, it deals with the tough
and interrelated issues of security, economics, jobs, and trade. It
also cuts to the fundamental prerogative of states and that is their
sovereignty.

Nonproliferation requires global engagement. Success will also
require regional strategies tailored to tne specific security concerns
of individual countries. Diplomacy, backed up by American power,
represents our primary tool in attaining our nonproliferation goals.
At the same time, we will ensure that U.S. and allied forces are
prepared to cope with possible threats if our nonproliferation ef-
forts were to fail.

Success will require American leadership. The Clinton adminis-
tration is poised to undertake that leadership around the world.
We also recognize that we cannot shoulder all nonproliferation re-
sponsibilities alone. We will require the help of others to succeed,
first in controlling trade in dangerous arms and technologies which
are available now around the world.

But let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, that as important, if not
more important, will be that the administration and the Congress
will work as a team. We share the same nonproliferation goals, and
working together, in my view, we will be able to achieve these so
the world knows that the United States stands firmly for these
goals and that we are prepared to take the steps necessary to
achieve those goals.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Davis appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]

Chairman Hamilton. Are there any other statements from our
witnesses?

OK Thank you, Secretary Davis.

We will begin with questions, then.

MOST URGENT PROLIFERATION PROBLEM

What is the single most urgent proliferation problem today?

Ms. Davis. I think the single most urgent proliferation problem
has to do with the potential tnreat of nuclear weapons. That is our
highest priority. That is not to say that the other priorities are not
also very important, but to your question, our highest priority is to
prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Chairman Hamilton. What country concerns you the most?

Ms. Davis. Well, there are a number of countries and in many
ways, these countries raise different kinds of concerns. We focus
most specifically on the concerns generated by the fact that there
are very large numbers of nuclear weapons in the former States of
the Soviet Union. And as I tried to describe in my testimony, the
various steps that we have been taking to remove those threats,
and in particular, to ensure that the three states that became inde-
pendent but on whose territories nuclear weapons existed, are pre-
pared to make good on their commitments on the Lisbon Protocol,
that is ratify the START treaty, and become nonnuclear adherents
to the NPT.

Chairman Hamilton. When you think about the threat to the
United States, what country worries you the most?

Ms. Davis, I still think we need to focus on the nuclear weapons,
the very large numbers of nuclear weapons in the States of the
former Soviet Union, even as we build those partnerships with
those countries. I can move on, though, and focus on a country that
also raises serious concerns and, clearly, as I presented in my testi-
mony, the possibility of the development of nuclear weapons in
North Korea is also a serious concern.

Chairman Hamilton. As to the threat to the United States, you
would put the New Independent States ahead of North Korea at
this moment?

Ms. Davis. At this moment, Mr. Chairman, I would because
while we have serious concerns about the possibility that North
Korea is developing nuclear weapons, they haven't acquired those
nuclear weapons and, therefore, in that circumstance, they are not
through those nuclear weapons a direct threat to the United
States.

But that is not to say that over time that we wouldn't worry if
they were to acquire those nuclear weapons and indeed the whole
purpose of our policy is to prevent that from happening.

SITUATION in NORTH KOREA

Chairman Hamilton. Let me ask you, where do things stand
right now in the negotiations on North Korea's nuclear program?
What is the United States, South Korea, and the IAEA, asking of
North Korea?

Ms. Davis. The United States and the whole international com-
munity is asking North Korea to carry out its obligations under the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and in addition, to move to imple-
ment its agreement with South Korea for a denuclearization of that
peninsula. So what we are seeking to do is to have North Korea
provide us with confidence that they are not developing nuclear
weapons.

Chairman Hamilton. And what has the North Korean response
been?

Ms. Davis. As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, in the spring, the
North Koreans withdrew from the treaty and subsequently have
suspended their withdrawal from that treaty. They have also per-
mitted some limited inspections to have occurred over the course
of the past few months. But their response to us is that they doubt
the impartiality of the International Atomic Energy Agency and
have been resisting the kinds of inspections that the agency seeks
to carry out in order to have confidence that North Korea is carry-
ing out its obligations under the treaty.

Chairman Hamilton. So North Korea, at the present time, is un-
willing to permit the kind of international inspections that we in
the international community think appropriate.

Ms. Davis. At the present time, Mr. Chairman, the North Kore-
ans have not been prepared to accept the kinds of inspections that
the IAEA is seeking so that the IAEA can have confidence that the
continuity of safeguards — that is a term of art — ^but that the safe-
guards regime necessary to have confidence with respect to North
Korea's activities is being carried out.

Chairman Hamilton. What does continuity of safeguards mean?

Ms. Davis. Well, the continuity of safeguards is a way of describ-
ing the kinds of activities that the IAEA performs in terms of their
inspections, watching over the kinds of activities that could lead to
the development of nuclear materials.

Chairman Hamilton. Has that continuity been broken?

Ms. Davis. The IAEA has stated that the continuity of safe-
guards has not at this time been broken but that their confidence
in their ability to say that North Korea is carrying out their obliga-
tions is seriously eroding.

Chairman Hamilton. If they can't get the kind of inspections
they want, why wouldn't they say the continuity is broken?

Ms. Davis. Well, it is a process — it is a process that has — it is
hard to have a single point in time. What happens in the course
of these inspections, Mr. Chairman, is that the IAEA watches over
activities associated with the potential production of nuclear mate-
rials. They had some limited inspections over the past few months
and were able to say to the world that the continuity of safeguards
had been maintained but the fact that they are now not permitted
to do the kind of inspections that they are asking for has led them
to believe that we are facing a time in which they would not be in
a position to make that determination.

Chairman Hamilton. They are not now producing fissile mate-
rial, are they?

Ms. Davis. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Hamilton. What is the significance of that? Does that
mean that we do not necessarily need to go to the brink right away
with North Korea?

Ms. Davis. Let's step back and say that our overall goal is to pre-
vent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, and not to ac-
quire nuclear weapons by developing materials in order to make
those weapons. The whole purpose of our seeking to follow those
activities is to give us confidence that they are not currently devel-
oping nuclear materials. If we are not able to watch over tnose ac-
tivities, then we would lose confidence over time that they are not
developing nuclear weapons.

Chairman Hamilton. Do they have a nuclear weapon today?

Ms. Davis. The Director of Central Intelligence, Mr. Woolsey, has
testified to this committee and to other committees, that there is
a possibility, that in the past North Korea could have produced
weapons-grade material sufficient to produce one to two weapons.

Chairman Hamilton. They could have?

Ms. Davis. They could have.

Chairman Hamilton. Did they?

Ms. Davis. I think it is his judgment they could have but we
don't have an independent means to know, but let me go on, Mr.
Chairman

Chairman Hamilton. So they could have a nuclear weapon or
two, but we don't know for sure?

NORTH KOREAN COMPLL^NCE WITH IAEA STANDARDS

Ms. Davis. It is that possibility that has led the IAEA to wish
to do what are called "special inspections," that is to take the steps
necessary to find out whether in the past North Korea has been
able to take the steps necessary to acquire or to develop that kind
of material.

Chairman Hamilton. And the North Koreans are denying those
special inspections; is that correct?

Ms. Davis. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Hamilton. Is it correct to say that the North Koreans
have actually succeeded in racheting down their obligations to the
international community?

Ms. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I don't understand the question.

Chairman Hamilton. Well, have they racheted down from the
question, for example, of inspection of undeclared facilities to
whether the IAEA will be allowed to change films and batteries?

Ms. Davis. It is not that they would have racheted down. Let's
start with what the IAEA has requested and

Chairman Hamilton. They are not permitting inspections of
undeclared facilities, are they?

Ms. Davis. That is correct.

Chairman Hamilton. And the newspapers report that the whole
fight seems to be over whether the IAEA inspectors can put film
in the camera.

Ms. Davis. I don't think it is quite

Chairman Hamilton. That seems to me to be quite a jump down.

Ms. Davis. No. The IAEA has a set of activities that they would
wish to carry out in North Korea in order to have confidence that
the continuity of safeguards is being maintained.

Chairman Hamilton. And we back the IAEA?

Ms. Davis. And we clearly back the IAEA in the kinds of activi-
ties which they wish to be able to carry out. And at this point in
time, the North Koreans are not permitting the IAEA to carry out
the activities that they would wish to do.

That is not to say, Mr. Chairman, that we are not pressing the
North Koreans to carry those out. Clearly, a very important part
of the Clinton administration's policy is to gain the North Korean
support for these essential activities on the part of the IAEA.

NORTH KOREAN INTENTIONS

Chairman Hamilton. Is it your impression that North Korea is
hell bent on developing a nuclear weapon or are they seeking to get
something from us and from the international community? What is
their game?

Ms. Davis. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the regime in North
Korea is isolated and it is very hard from the outside to understand
precisely what they are seeking or how they are seeking to play
this particular issue.

It is for us to define quite clearly what it is that we wish to see
in terms of their behavior but not to speculate as to what they are
trying to accomplish but rather to seek that they carry out the
kinds of obligations which are consistent with their being parties
to the Nonproliferation Treaty.

Chairman Hamilton. Do you think they are hell bent on devel-
oping a nuclear weapon?

Ms. Davis. I don't have a view as to whether they are hell bent.
I have a view that it is very important that they, on the part of
the international community, be brought to carry out the respon-
sibilities imder the agreement

Chairman Hamilton. Do you think they are trying to develop a
nuclear weapon?

Ms. Davis. At the present time, I have confidence that the — with
the safeguards that are currently in place and the inspections we
have been able to take, that they are now not currently developing
nuclear materials.

Chairman Hamilton. For a weapon?

Ms. Davis. For weapons.

STATUS OF U.S. -NORTH KOREAN CONSULTATIONS

Chairman Hamilton. Now, are we considering offering them
some kind of face-saving incentives to allow inspections? There has
been talk, for example, that we should support the South Korean
offer to end joint military exercises. Is that on the table in our ne-
gotiations? Are we saying to the North Koreans, if you will allow
the IAEA to go in and inspect, we will stop these joint maneuvers
and allow you to come into South Korea and inspect for nuclear
weapons. Is there some kind of a deal like that cooking here?

Ms. Davis. We have said quite clearly to the North in the con-
versations that we have had over the past two sets of consultations,
that we wish to address, in the context of resolving the nuclear
issue according to the goals that we seek — I have described those
earlier to you — that in the context of resolving the nuclear issue

that we are prepared to meet the legitimate security concerns of
North Korea.

We are not cooking a deal and we are not in the process of back-
ing down on those goals and seeking to carry — to make clear that
North

Chairman Hamilton, So we are not extending any carrots to
them at this point? Our position is they have to permit the inspec-
tions, period?

Ms. Davis. They need to permit the inspections and the second —
and secondly, to proceed with consultations with the South to carry
out and implement the denuclearization agreements between the
North and tne South.

PROSPECTS FOR U.N. SANCTIONS

Chairman Hamilton. At what point would we go to the U.N. for
sanctions?

Ms. Davis. It is not just that the United States but that the
whole world community nas said quite clearly to North Korea that
if they are not prepared to carry out their obligations under the
NPT

Chairman Hamilton. Which they are not doing now.

Ms. Davis. Including their carrying out — including permitting
the IAEA to carry out the kinds of activities consistent with the
safeguards regime.

Chairman Hamilton. Which they are also not doing.

Ms. Davis. We would then be prepared to move back to the Secu-
rity Council.

Chairman Hamilton. Are we ready to go, then?

Ms. Davis. Well, at this point, we have said quite clearly that
our patience is running out and that the North Koreans need to
know that is the next step.

Chairman Hamilton. How imminent is the next step?

Ms. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I can't give you a time specific, but
I can say that our patience is running out.

CHINESE AND JAPANESE POSITION ON U.N. SANCTIONS

Chairman Hamilton. And would China support the sanctions?

Ms. Davis. We have worked very closely with China. The Chi-
nese Government shares the goals of the United States, South
Korea, Japan, and the international community with respect to
North Korea not developing nuclear weapons and remaining within
the Nonproliferation Treaty. And so we are in daily contact with
the Chinese seeking those goals.

Chairman Hamilton. Do you think they would abstain?

Ms, Davis. It is hard for me to predict what another government
would do but they share our goals and I would hope that they
would continue to work with us toward those goals if we have to
move this back to the Security Council.

Chairman Hamilton. Does Japan favor the sanctions?

Ms. Davis. At this point, the Japanese Grovernment also shares
with us our goals with respect to a nonnuclear North and South
Korea and have been working closely with us to make that occur.
I have no doubt that Japan will support those goals if and when
it would be necessary to move back to the Security Council.

Chairman Hamilton. So you think they would support sanc-
tions?

Ms. Davis. They support these goals, and if it is necessary, the
kinds of steps necessary to carry out those goals. The Security
Council made that clear in the spring. The international commu-
nity has made that clear over the past few weeks.

Chairman Hamilton. So if you get a refusal from North Korea
to allow these inspections, it is your judgment that Japan would
support the sanctions, that South Korea would support the sanc-
tions, and that China would support the sanctions?

Ms. Davis. Well, in the course of working to achieve our goal,
which is through diplomacy so that we don't find ourselves back in
the Security Council and that North Korea has carried out its obli-
gations, those three countries have worked with us to give diplo-
macy a chance. We have given diplomacy a chance and if that par-
ticular set of goals are not achieved through diplomacy, I believe
that they would support us as we moved back to the Security
Council.

Chairman Hamilton. And seek sanctions?

Ms. Davis. And seek sanctions.

Chairman Hamilton. Mr. Manzullo.

PACE OF denuclearization IN NIS

Mr. Manzullo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Davis, Gen-
eral McGregor Bums testified before this committee several
months ago and stated that in his opinion, there had been rel-
atively little done with regard to the dismantling of nuclear war-
heads in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus. Could you give us an
update on that progress, if any?

Ms. Davis. Well, we are beginning to make progress in terms of
the actual dismantlement. The steps required seem to all of us a
little bit laborious in that we needed to sign agreements, umbrella
agreements to this — ^for the dismantling of these weapons so that
fiinds could begin to flow toward those activities. Deactivation is
occurring in each of three states that acquired nuclear weapons
with the break up of the former Soviet Union and our funds are
flowing with respect to Belarus and Russia and that is because
agreements have been signed and we can get underway.

I expect and hope in the next few weeks that we will have the
necessary implementing agreements to begin those steps with re-
spect to both Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

Mr. Manzullo. We have had numerous meetings with leaders,
with Members of the Parliament from Belarus and the Ukraine
and there seems to be an international chess game over the exact
costs necessary to dismantle these weapons.

Could you tell us. Secretary Davis, does the money go directly
into the hands of the nationals or is the money provided in a fund
and then AmericEins are used to do the dismantling themselves?

Ms. Davis. These are funds that go to contracts that are pri-
marily contracts with Americans who in turn then service the dis-
mantling of these weapons.

JAPAN AS A NUCLEAR POWER

Mr. Manzullo. I appreciate that. The other question, I read in
the Washington Post on October 31 that Japan may be very much
interested in developing an atomic presence and that with the loss
in their Parliament of several Members of the Socialist Party which
have traditionally been against the use of nuclear weapons, what
measures do we have in place that would prevent Japan from be-
coming a nuclear state?

Ms. Davis. Well, the most important step taken by the Japanese
Grovemment over the past couple of months is to join the other Gr-
7 members and many others in the world seeking the indefinite ex-
tension of the Nonproliferation Treaty. There has been a debate in
Japan and that debate has led the government to the position
which is that they continue not only to be themselves members of
the Nonproliferation Treaty but to support its indefinite extension.
So whatever articles and quotations you are hearing, I think one
should focus on what the government is saying and their commit-
ment to be — to continue to be a nonnuclear power.

Mr. Manzullo. Is there any question in your mind that Japan
is not actively engaged in trying to become a nuclear power?

Ms, Davis. Nothing in terms of their activities suggest to me that
they are seeking to become a nuclear power.

status of nis denuclearization program

Mr. Manzullo. Back to the first question, my understanding is
that there have been some ballistic missiles that have been trucked
from Belarus to Russia for the purpose of dismantling. But Belarus
still has some tactical missiles; is that correct?

Ms. Davis. The Russians have confirmed to me that all tactical
nuclear weapons have been removed from the states — the Newly
Independent States, so I 4;hink there is not any indication that that
report is correct.

Mr. Manzullo. That is from Belarus

Ms. Davis. All three.

Mr. Manzullo. All three?

Ms. Davis. Yes. Kazakhstan and Belarus and Ukraine.

Mr. Manzullo. So what would be left in those states is ballistic
missiles?

Ms. Davis. Strategic missiles.

Mr. Manzullo. But none have been dismantled to date; is that
correct?

Ms. Davis. We are in the course of following closely the deactiva-
tion and dismantling of these warheads. And in the case of
Belarus, at this point, there are 72 what are known as SS-25 stra-
tegic missiles, currently in Belarus, and under the agreements that
they have made to become a nonnuclear state, these will be re-
moved back to Russia.

PROGRESS toward THE DENUCLEARIZATION OF UKRAINE

Mr. Manzullo. Then what about the nagging problem of the
Ukraine wanted to maintain a nuclear presence in light of their
history with Russia?

Ms. Davis. Well, as I indicated in mv opening statement, one of
the critical goals that the Secretary had when he just visited in the
Ukraine was to convince the government of our determination to
see them carry out their commitments made in Lisbon to ratify the
START I Treaty and to become a nonnuclear member of the Non-
proliferation Treaty. There is clearly a debate going on in the
Ukraine, but the President of Ukraine made his personal commit-
ment that that government intended to carry it out, and to follow
up from that, we are working very hard to begin the dismantle-
ment process.

The |;ood news from that particular trip was that Ukraine and
the United States signed the umbrella agreement for the disman-
tling of their nuclear weapons in Ukraine. We hope to have in place
implementing agreements so that this can get underway in the
coming few weeks.

Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Chairman, if I may ask one more question?

Chairman HAMILTON. Yes.

SUCCESSOR REGIME TO COCOM

Mr, Manzullo. Secretary Davis, could you give us a scenario, if
one has been developed, on the State Department's plans to replace
COCOM?

Ms. Davis. I was going to say that is a final question and that
I could go on indefinitely.

Mr. Manzullo. In 2 minutes or less.

Ms. Davis. Let me make a couple of points and I can follow up
to the extent that you wish.

The first is that we are working with our allies with the goal of
replacing the COCOM regime, bom of the East-West confrontation,
with a successor regime focused on our new strategic concerns in
which Russia and the other Newly Independent States would be a
partner in this regime and that we would focus particularly on the
transfer of and sales of sensitive dual-use items and also arms to
areas and particular countries of — of particular concern, Iran, Iraq,
North Korea and Libya.

So we are seeking a successor regime focused on the new strate-
gic concerns by a bilateral regime where Russia is a partner, not
a target.

Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.

Chairman Hamilton. Mr. Gejdenson.

U.S. arms sales to the middle east

Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Could you tell me what is the value of our arms sales into the
Middle East since the Iran-Iraq War, and since the Kuwaiti War.

Ms. Davts. I am sorry. I don't hold those numbers in my head.
There have been some important sales, and if I could provide the
specific numbers for the record, but following on the Gulf War, it
was important to provide security to those states in that region
whose security had been threatened by events in Iraq.

[The information follows:]

Since the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988, our data shows that countries in the
Middle East and Persian Gulf have accepted about $50,254 billion in govemment-
to-govemment sales. This includes $23,908 billion sold since Desert Storm.

With regard to commercial military exports to the Middle East and Persian Gulf,
the U.S. has issued licenses (authorizations) valued at $26,799 billion since the end
of the Iran-Iraq war, of which $12.49 billion were issued since Desert Storm. How-
ever, I would note that, historically, only about 40 percent of commercial licenses
issued result in actual exports.

Therefore, the total of U.S. Middle East defense sales since the Irem-Iraq war, is
$50,254 billion in FMS plus an estimated $10.72 billion commercial, for a total of
about $61 billion. The majority of these sales were for defensive systems (e.g. Pa-
triot and I-Hawk air defense systems) and logistical support services for established
programs.

Mr. Gejdenson, Would you say it is a safe bet that we are the
foremost arms merchant into the Middle East by a significant fac-
tor?

Ms. Davis. We have sales of considerable value into the Middle
East.

Mr. Gejdenson. Some of us benefit from those when we make
our own particular parts of them.

Ms. Davis. These are U.S. sales and U.S. jobs.

Mr. Gejdenson. Everybody else is a distant second when you
look at arms sales into the region?

Ms. Davis. That is correct.

IMPACT OF U.S. sales ON ARMS TRANSFERS WORLDWIDE

Mr. Gejdenson. Then when you go to COCOM and you try to
get restrictions on conventional arms, maybe it is not surprising
that we have less than an enthusiastic response from some of our
allies because they have got their places in the world where they
profit and get jobs from arms sales.

Do you have a strate^ for finding a way to end this race? All
of us have our in-distnct pressure trying to get the arms sales
through because we want our people to work, but then when we
look at the explosions around the world, I mean, thankfully, we are
not selling arms into Yugoslavia at the moment or other countries.
But now we, the major powers, are trying to cooperate. It doesn't
necessarily seem to have slowed down the arms sales.

Ms. Davis. I think actually you will begin to see some slowing
down of the arms sales, but that is not your major point. The major
point is how it is that we seek to gain constraints on the sales of
arms to areas that pose security threats to ourselves and to our al-
lies, and what kinds of leverage or persuasion do we have when we
are selling arms ourselves.

TARGET COUNTRIES OF SUCCESSOR REGIME TO COCOM

And the way we make the case, and I think and very much hope
we can sustain the case, is that we wish to direct constraints on
arms and their sales to areas of the world and particular countries
that are particularly dangerous, and here we have in mind Iran,
Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and more generally in areas of concern,
South Asia and the Middle East.

Mr. Gejdenson. Syria is not a country of concern?

Ms, Davis. Syria directly is not a country of concern. We are very
much worried about stability and security in the Middle East re-
gion as a whole, so that is the way

Mr. Gejdenson. But is Syria on the list of countries that we are
concerned about?

76-043 0-94-2

Ms. Davis. Syria is not on the list of target countries in the sense
of the proposals that we are making in a successor regime to
COCOM. But clearly, as you understand, they are still very much
on the list that we have with respect to terrorist

Mr. Gejdenson. What separates Syria from other countries like
Libya, Iraq, and Iran?

Ms. Davis. In our view, because of our worries about Syria and
its terrorist connections, there is no difference.

Mr. Gejdenson. Then why isn't it on the list?

Ms. Davis. Let me step back and say — let me tell you what I am
trying to do and

Mr. Gejdenson. I guess what I am trying to get across is that
maybe Syria ought to be in that list. I don t want to badger you
on it, and I will be happy to give you time to answer, but I want
to get on to another question.

Ms. Davis. Can I make a small point, and that is what the Unit-
ed States is seeking to gain in the successor regime, support for
controls on arms. My response is we are doing that by seeking to
show that we need to focus on the dangers and we need to do it
together, and we have learned the lessons of Iraq, and that if we
don't do it together, we suffer in the future.

reevaluating technology transfer policies

Mr. Gejdenson. Let me ask another question.

I have watched the export control issue now for a number of
years, and in trying to deal with our allies our alliance sometimes
becomes mistrustful of our agenda. We had a situation where the
United States refused an export license to sell a bank card to Eng-
land. Apparently they were worried about the chip in the bank
card. On the other hand, we transferred to the British the blue-
prints for the Trident submarine and gave them the missiles to go
with it.

It seemed to be kind of a strange set of circumstances. We block
in COCOM a 30-year-old computer going to Vietnam from France,
so the French then would kind of retaliate in some other area when
it came along. How do we get our own politics, whether it is Cuban
Americans, or other parts of the globe pressing the United States
to take actions that aren't really serious threats and don't create
problems in the technology sense.

I guess what I am saying is shouldn't we focus on chokepoints
of technology, on the technologies that really have something to do
with proliferation, and not eimer squander the American economy
or harass our allies on things that are irrelevant?

The example I used in the previous administration, was that
there was this great battle going on between the Secretary of Com-
merce Mosbacher and Secretary of Defense Cheney over decontrol-
ling 286 computers. It was a joke. It had nothing to do with pro-
liferation. And what I am hopeful is that in this new administra-
tion we will be able to get a reasonable focus, pick our terrorist
countries, and I put Syria in that ^oup, making sure that we don't
allow technology transfer to occur m those cases.

And if you want to go beyond reason, which may make some
sense for foreign policy reasons even if they don't have proliferation
arguments, but not to create the kind of morass that we have lived

with for a decade here of technology that is generally available and
isn't critical just to the nuclear, chemical, or biological program.

Ms. Davis. Well, I think we are starting down that — in that di-
rection in the liberalization that the President announced with re-
spect to computers and trying, as you suggest, to balance out the
goals of liberalizing while at the same time ensuring that the very
sensitive technologies are controlled for nonproliferation purposes.

Mr. Gejdenson. Let me give you an example of where we are
having trouble today.

Ms. Davis. I figured you would have one in our administration.

Mr. Gejdenson. I hate to do this because I really like your ad-
ministration, I think they are doing a great job, and they have
moved at lightning speed compared to what we have done over the
last 12 years.

Ms. Davis. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gejdenson. There is no question in my mind that we have
a critical difference in this area. At the same time the previous ad-
ministration was signing nuclear licenses to Iraq, they were stop-
ping things going to Western Democratic countries and it was in-
sanity. And I want to applaud you for what you have done, but we
are still doing some things that don't make a lot of sense.

We had a hearing on my subcommittee some time ago that
showed that while the administration was denying the export li-
cense to AT&T for 565 switching stations for telecommunications,
that the Chinese were making their own and the Israelis were sell-
ing them 623s. Now, that didn't seem to make a lot of sense and
I would have thought when the administration, which I had such
great admiration for, saw this kind of insanity, they would allow
the Americans to compete. But what was the response of the ad-
ministration?

They started beating up this little Israeli company telling them
not to sell that 623 there, because they may lose all their export
licenses for the parts they need from the United States.

Now, the answer ought to be let's let the Americans compete in
that area. It is not an area that we can control, it doesn't make
sense to continue those. I am just hopeful we are talking about a
lag time here and that you are going to get to where I think you
ought to go.

SUPPORT FOR UNILATERAL CONTROLS IN SOME CASES

Let American companies get a piece of that market before we
lose it completely. And I guess what that comes to is at what point,
and I believe there are instances where you need to do this, at
what point do you believe in unilateral controls?

I mean, we clearly do not control technology like we used to. Lots
of it is available from different places in the world. There are in-
stances where I would believe in unilateral controls if we could get
no one in the rest of the world to join with us. And you know the
recent history of the best examples, obviously, are Iraq, Iran, and
countries of that nature. But there are times where you draw a line
in the sand, and you say this country is so dangerous even if they
could buy these weapons, this technology, these dual-use items
from every other country in the globe, the United States isn't going

to sell it to them. I don't have a problem with that policy. It needs
to be delineated.

Ms. Davis. I share with you the need to make sure that we don't
lose the President's ability to place unilateral controls for these se-
rious dangers. On the other hand, we are going through those con-
trols carefully to see that we continue to believe that they are nec-
essary for the new world.

Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Burton.

SMUGGLING OF WEAPONS FROM THE NIS

Mr. Burton. Thank, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I appre-
ciate the loyalty shown by Mr. Gejdenson to the Clinton adminis-
tration. I really thought tnat was well done.

Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you.

Mr. Burton. Secretary Davis, one of the areas that I have a
great deal of interest in is the smuggling of various kinds of weap-
ons and weapons parts across the borders from the old Soviet
Union into Germany and into Austria, and other countries, from
which it is then sold or taken to other countries.

I have been told by some intelligence people from outside the
United States that there is a real problem with nuclear fissionable
material going into Germany. It has been caught at the border on
numerous occasions, chemical and biological materials and weap-
ons have been caught at the borders. How widespread is this and
how much of it is getting out of the Soviet Union through the black
market?

Ms. Davis. We very much share your concern with the possibili-
ties that such materials, technologies, or items, flight be leaving
these territories, these Newly Independent States. That is why it
is a high priority in the various activities that we have with each
of these states, that we put in place an export control regime so
that they themselves can monitor and have confidence that these
activities are not taking place. So we share the need to be sure, to
be confident.

You asked me to give you a sense of how bad or how serious the
problem might be with respect to these items. And, again, we can
go into more details if you would wish and the intelligence commu-
nity is the place to be very specific.

Every time we hear a report of this we look into it. We try to
find out what is happening. We work with our allies and their offi-
cials to intercept these. \^ have examples of this. We are as con-
cerned with this, our allies are concerned with this. So I am saying
two things: one, we know it is a potential problem and we are
working to get at the heart of that problem, which is export control
regimes that are adequate. And secondly, when we hear of this,
with the intelligence community and the State Department, we use
whatever we can to find out about this and block it from happen-
ing.

terrorist access to nuclear, chemical and biological

weapons

Mr. Burton. Secretary Davis, I would appreciate it if you would
have whatever intelligence information that is available sent to my
office or else have somebody come by to talk to me, because I would

really like to check into this. This is a real concern. The American
people are not aware of it, and I know that some of this is classi-
fied, so we won't get into it.

We had the terrorist attack in New York at the World Trade
Center. Some of this fissionable material and some of these weap-
ons are very small. And they are very mobile and we need to along
with our allies have some kind of a system that is as foolproof as
possible to make sure that chemical, biological, and nuclear weap-
ons that are portable don't get into this country or other — or our
allies' countries. And I think the Members of the Congress ought
to have their antenna raised because there is a real proliferation,
as far as I have been told, that is taking place in this area through
the black market, and much of it emanates from the old Soviet
Union. And if you — you take some of this chemical and biological
material, and it could be devastating to large cities, as well as the
nuclear problem. And so I would appreciate very much if I could
get a briefing on that, number one. And number two, I would urge
the administration, I am sure you are probably already working on
this, but I would urge the administration and our DIA, CIA and
others to do everything they can to work with our allies to make
sure that we intercept as much of this as possible and keep this
to a minimum. Because it wouldn't take much to destroy literally
millions of people.

Ms. Davis. We certainly agree with the concerns. I don't want to
raise it out of proportion, that is we take it seriously, but I don't
think it is a danger in which we ought to create too much publicity.
We work on it day to day.

Mr. Burton. I understand.

Ms. Davis. We certainly will provide you with what intelligence
we have. One of the reasons that we are spending as much time
as we are seeking the dismantlement of these weapons, getting the
materials out of these weapons, blending down these materials so
that they are not usable for nuclear weapons purposes, putting in
place in 1995, the Chemical Weapons Convention, getting rid of
them, all of these things are part of our overall policy.

Mr. Burton. I don't want to prolong this, and I appreciate the
chairman's indulgence. Let me just say, and this is not classified,
we know that in the Sudan, for instance, there probably are several
terrorist camps outside Khartoum that are training terrorists in a
number of new methods of terrorism, and if this material is leaking
out or leaching out of the old Soviet Union and it gets into their
hands, it does pose a threat to the United States and our allies.

I mean, if they could do what they did at the World Trade Center
with normal materials, dynamite and things like that, just think
what they could do with this other stuff. I think it is a real threat
and they are doing everything they can to cause problems without
focus, and our allies, and destabilize some of our allies in the Mid-
dle East. And they are even sending terrorists into Somalia. So this
is a real concern, and I just — I can't emphasize enough that I hope
the administration makes this a top priority and works with our
allies to make sure this transportation of these various kinds of
weapons are kept to a minimum.

Ms. Davis. We agree, and it is a very high priority. And you un-
derstand the difficulty, but that doesn't mean we don't take the
challenge.

Mr. Burton. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Hamilton. Mr. Lantos.

PROLIFERATION CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO IRAN

Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Davis, what are your key concerns with respect to Iran in
the field of proliferation/

Ms. Davis. My concerns with respect to Iran span the whole
range of our nonproliferation objectives, that is Iran's behavior, in
my view, in seeking to acquire dangerous arms, nuclear tech-
nologies in order to develop nuclear weapons, as well as — I think
I have lost my mike.

We also have worries about their intentions with respect to the
acquisition of dangerous arms and missiles and missile technology,
so I am very worried about the behavior of Iran.

Mr. Lantos [presiding]. To what extent do your concerns stem
from the failure of some of our allies, particularly Germany in this
case, in cooperating with us to prevent Iran from acquiring all
these weapons?

Ms. Davis. I wouldn't single out any country, and I
especially

Mr. Lantos. Why do you think that news reports do single out
Germany?

Ms. Davis. I am not sure which news reports you are referring
to. We have close contact

Mr. Lantos. You are unaware of the fact that there have been
many reputable news reports focusing on Germany with respect to
Iranian developments in this field?

Ms. Davis. Germany continues to have relations with Iran and
continues to carry out trade with Iran. I would not argue that Ger-
many is contributing to the kinds of activities and behavior that I
have just described with respect to Iran. On the other hand, in
close consultations with Germany, we are seeking to ensure that
none of these activities are being undertaken.

Mr. Lantos. Could you expand on that bit, because I don't find
your answer very responsive to my question.

Ms. Davis. Well, I am not sure what you are asking me. Con-
gressman.

Mr. Lantos. Are we satisfied with allied cooperation in dealing
with Iran on this issue of nonproliferation?

Ms. Davis. OK We would wish that our allies would join us, and
this is the goal that we are seeking with respect to a successor re-
gime not to

Mr. Lantos. Beyond wishing, what we have done to bring this

about?

Ms. Davis. Let me tell you my goal and let me tell you where
we are with respect to that.

Mr. Lantos. I know what your goal is. I am not interested in
your goal. Your goal is full cooperation. My question is, are our al-
lies cooperating and if not, what are we telling them?

Ms. Davis. First of all, I haven't achieved my goal, you are cor-
rect. And secondly, that hasn't led me to give up in seeking their
agreement. I believe that we will gain from our allies a regime in
which we discuss and we work together to control dangerous trade
in strategic arms and strategic technologies to Iran. So I believe
that we will accomplish that. I haven't accomplished that goal
today.

Mr. Lantos. Do you see a parallel between what happened with
respect to the arming of Iraq earlier and what is now taking place
with respect to Iran?

Ms. Davis. It is precisely because I don't want it to happen again
in the way it happened with Iraq, that the Clinton administration
cares so much with respect to the trade in technologies and dual-
use arms, dual-use technologies and arms to Iran.

IRAQI NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES

Mr. Lantos. Is your view that Iraq still has undiscovered nuclear
capabilities?

Ms. Davis. Well, in the process of the various inspections that
have been underway, the international community is seeking to
carry out those resolutions which will mean that Iraq will no
longer have nuclear weapons or materials that could contribute to
nuclear weapons. At this point, the administration does not believe
that we have succeeded in carrying out — or Iraq has succeeded in
carrying out all of their obligations under those sanctions, so I
couldn't answer "yes" at this point to your question.

Mr. Lantos. We have no assurance that Iraq does not have nu-
clear capability; is that your testimony?

Ms. Davis. At this point, we are not prepared to say anything
different than that.

Mr. Lantos. If Iraq continues to reject the establishment of long-
term monitoring programs, what would be the timeframe for Iraq
to resuscitate its nuclear program to the levels of the pre-Desert
Storm period?

Ms. Davis. I am not sure that I can speculate with respect to
time, but I can tell you that we are committed to ensuring that
Iraq agrees to this long-term monitoring regime.

Mr. Lantos. Would the timeframe be shortened if sanctions were
lifted?

Ms. Davis. Well, it would depend — it would depend. Congress-
man Lantos, on precisely what then happened following the lifting
of sanctions.

Mr. Lantos. Well, the lifting of sanctions would provide

Ms. Davis. We have no intention

Mr. Lantos. The lifting of sanctions would provide them with
money, allowing a great deal to be done.

Ms. Davis. We have no plans to lift those sanctions.

Mr. Lantos. So your answer is that the lifting of sanctions would
in fact shorten the timeframe.

Ms. Davis. The point here is that the sanctions are in place be-
cause we don't have confidence that Iraq is not in a position to de-
velop weapons of mass destruction, so we will keep those sanctions
in place until we have that confidence.

IRAQI CONVENTIONAL CAPABILITIES

Mr. IjANTOS. What is your view of Iraqs having rebuilt its con-
ventional military arsenal?

Ms. Davis. Are you suggesting to me that they have rebuilt their
conventional arsenal?

Mr. Lantos. I am asking what your view is?

Ms. Davis, Under the sanctions, we have focused on the develop-
ment of the dangerous weapons of mass destruction, so there has
been some continued activity with respect to their conventional ar-
maments. But I would suggest that we have our eyes on the right
focus and that is their potential development of weapons of mass
destruction.

Mr. Lantos. The committee will be in recess while this vote is
cast.

[Recess.]

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENT'S NONPROLIFERATION

AGENDA

Chairman Hamilton [presiding]. The committee will resume its
sitting.

In the President's September 27 speech at the U.N., he an-
nounced a number of nonproliferation goals — a global ban on the
production of fissile material for weapons purposes and expansion
of the Missile Technology Control Regime to make it global, a com-
prehensive ban on nuclear testing, universal adherence and ratifi-
cation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, strengthening the Bio-
logical Weapons Convention.

Are we going to need any legislative changes to achieve any of
those goals?

Ms. Davis. Well, at this point, we are negotiating the two con-
ventions that we laid out here. This is the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty and a global convention preventing the production of fissile
material for nuclear weapons purposes. If we are successful in
these treaties, we will clearly come back to the Senate for their
ratification. But in the near term, I am not looking for any specific
legislation in order to carry out these goals.

AGENCY responsibility FOR NONPROLIFERATION POLICY

IMPLEMENTATION

Chairman HAMILTON. Now, what agency of the government has
the responsibility to achieve those goals or is it divided in some
way?

Ms. Davis. Well, this is a team effort, Mr. Chairman. We all
work as a team and when we go to negotiate arms controls agree-
ments, the comprehensive test ban, the global convention on the
cutoff of fissile material, we go as an interagency team. And de-
pending on the forum, depending on the kinds of consultations,
sometimes the State Department leads these, and I have been lead-
ing these in the preparations for the comprehensive test ban, but
when we get underway in Geneva in those negotiations for — in the
Conference on Disarmament, it will be led by Ambassador Ledogar
who comes from the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

Chairman Hamilton. Are you the "Nonproliferation Czar" in this
administration?

Ms. Davis. I have never been quite given that title, but I will
take it as one to see whether I can

Chairman Hamilton. You are the head person.

Ms. Davis. I am the head person.

Chairman Hamilton. Now, are you in charge of each of the nego-
tiations here — ^fissile material, MTCR, nuclear testing, the Non-
proliferation Treaty, chemical weapons, biological weapons — ^you
are in charge of all these negotiations?

Ms. Davis. Well, if you are looking for someone that you can al-
ways talk to, someone that takes responsibility for actively carrying
out the goals of the President, come to me.

Chairman Hamilton. OK. So we have a negotiator, I presume,
for each one of those areas?

Ms. Davis. Different negotiators, different fora, different rep-
resentatives, depending on the group.

Chairman HAMILTON. They would report to you?

Ms. Davis. Well, they ultimately report to the President, but you
know I try to bring a coherence and energy to this set of activities.

Chairman HAMILTON. They report through you to the President;
is that it?

Ms. Davis. Well, I think each of their principals reports to the
President and we work as a team.

Chairman Hamilton. Well, that sounds kind of murky.

Ms. Davis. Mr. Chairman, the way the executive branch puts to-
gether policies, the best of it is that we bring perspectives and ex-
pertise and understandings to the formulation of these policies. But
if I hear your question as one that you would like to be able to al-
ways look to, I would ask that you look to me.

Chairman Hamilton. Well, it is hard to find out who has respon-
sibility in this government. That is why I am asking these ques-
tions.

Ms. Davis. I am a little surprised that you say that, Mr. Chair-
man.

Chairman Hamilton. You wouldn't be if you sat where I have for
the last 25 years.

Ms. Davis. Well, now you have the answer. I will be the person.

IRAQI NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES

Chairman Hamilton. OK.

Now, let's talk a little bit about Iraq. The IAEA officials indicate
that they believe they have discovered virtually all of Iraq's nuclear
program and that Iraq has substantially reduced or eliminated its
nuclear program; is that your judgment?

Ms. Davis. What we say with respect to nuclear weapons in Iraq
is that the U.N. inspection efforts have effectively put the Iraqi nu-
clear weapons program out of business for the near term. But we
still believe that Iraq retains some nonfissile materials, equipment,
and most importantly, expertise with which they could then again
develop these kinds of capabilities. So what we are looking toward
is putting in place a long-term monitoring regime to prevent Iraq
from developing large-scale weapons of mass destruction.

Chairman Hamilton. So it certainly is correct to say that the
major aspects of their nuclear program have been uncovered; is
that right?

Ms. Davis. That is our description of the current state

Chairman Hamilton. All right.

Ms. Davis [continuing]. Based on those inspections.

Chairman Hamilton. There have been some reports of an under-
ground nuclear reactor. Are you comfortable that the IAEA has
taken sufficient steps to try to locate that alleged Iraqi under-
ground nuclear reactor?

Ms. Davis. Well, I have heard of that allegation, Mr. Chairman,
and we still believe or still have confidence in the statement that
I just made. On the other hand, one of the reasons that we don't
believe that we are finished with our task with respect to Iraq, and
why it is that we need to have this long-term monitoring regime
and a period of time in which Iraq complies with its obligations, is
that we would worry that Iraq might find ways over time to de-
velop again these dangerous weapons.

LONG-TERM MONITORING OF IRAQ AND IRAN

Chairman Hamilton. The long-term monitoring is not in place
now; is that correct?

Ms. Davis. That is correct. We have begim discussions, strongly
supported by the Security Council, to put in place that regime, but
we are not there yet.

Chairman HAMILTON. What is the U.N. planning with regard to
long-term monitoring? What kind of plans do they have?

Ms. Davis. Well, I think we are in consultations and discussions
with Iraq to put that regime in place. As I said to you, that we
have at least begun to carry out such discussions with that as our
goal, but we have some far distance to travel.

Chairman Hamilton. Iraq is refusing to put a long-term mon-
itoring regime into place; is that correct.

Ms. Davis. So far they have not agreed to what are all the steps
necessary to put that regime in place.

Chairman Hamilton. And if they continue to reject the estab-
lishment of a long-term regime, how long would it take them to put
into place a nuclear weapons program and bring it up to, say, the
pre-Desert Storm levels?

Ms. Davis. I can't tell you precisely, Mr. Chairman, the time-
frame. What I can tell you is that we would not be confident that
Iraq did not have nuclear weapons unless we had such a long-term
monitoring regime, so what we can say about its current programs
is not sufficient for us to move beyond our current steps with re-
spect to Iraq or in any way to be in a position to remove sanctions.

Chairman Hamilton. I assume our principal concern now is
their expertise and their ingenuity in developing weapons of mass
destruction.

Ms. Davis. That is the primary worry. Once you know how to de-
velop these kinds of weapons, you don't forget that.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS TO IRAQ

Chairman Hamilton. Their nuclear capabihties, I guess, arise
principally from exports from other countries into Iraq. Are we tak-
ing steps to prevent their reacquiring nuclear equipment?

Ms. Davis. Well, the sanctions regime — witn the international
community's agreement — states that we will not be trading in arms
or dual-use technologies or the kinds of items that permitted such
developments in the past. That continues now with respect to Iraq.
So that is the means by which we are not repeating the mistakes
of the past.

Chairman Hamilton. Are you getting good cooperation from our
allies with respect to sending equipment to Iraq that could be used
for nuclear weapons purposes or buildup of military capabilities?

Ms. Davis. Here we have consensus with respect to preventing
the buildup of these kinds of capabilities.

Chairman Hamilton. So you are getting good cooperation?

Ms. Davis. We are getting good cooperation with respect to Iraq.

Chairman Hamilton. International compliance with Iraqi sanc-
tions is good, so far as you are able to see?

Ms. Davis. We watcn over that very carefully and can provide
you with more detail than I carry in my own memory, but we think
it is pretty good.

[The information follows:]

The international community is making a good faith effort to enforce the sanctions
and ensure that, with few exceptions, only food, medicine and humanitarian goods
are entering Iraq. The Multinational Interdiction Force routinely monitors ships
destined for the Jordanian port of Aqaba, the primary conduit for imports to Iraq.
The flow of goods through Turkey is monitored by the international presence in
northern Iraq.

The world-wide embargo on Iraqi oU exports is holding firm. Iraqi oil pipelines
through Turkey and Saudi Arabia remain closed. The loss of oil export earnings has
substantially lunited Iraq's ability to finance imports.

Chairman Hamilton. The European allies are stopping ship-
ments of dual-use equipment?

Ms. Davis. With respect to Iraq, yes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Hamilton. But not Iran?

Ms. Davis. I think this is a different case. And this is why the
Clinton administration has made it a high priority, both with re-
spect to our bilateral relations with our allies and also with our
new partners, Russia and the Newly Independent States, that we
refrain from the trade in arms as well as in dangerous dual-use
technologies.

IRAQ'S CONVENTIONAL ARMS BUILDUP

Chairman Hamilton. I will come back to Iran in a few minutes,
but I want to pursue Iraq a little further.

Do we have any concerns about Iraq's conventional arms build-
up?

Ms. Davis. I was asked that earlier, Mr. Chairman, and, of
course, we would not wish Iraq to become highly armed with con-
ventional means as well. We have a policy of denying the trade in
arms, conventional arms to Iraq, and that is being supported by
the international community. Their own modernization and devel-
opment of the arms that they retained at the end of the war, which

were far less than they began with, is something that they can con-
tinue, but they are not getting any international support for that
set of steps.

REPORTS OF IRAQI CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE

Chairman Hamilton. What about the reports we have seen
about the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against the Shiites in
the southern marshlands there.

Ms. Davis. We certainly are very worried about that possibility.
And I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to address those questions
more specifically to those in the intelligence community who follow
that closely.

Chairman Hamilton. You don't have any specific information
about that?

Ms. Davis. I don't have any specific information about that be-
yond what it is that has been reported publicly.

UKRAINIANS DELAY START AND NPT RATIFICATION

Chairman Hamilton. You mentioned the Secretary's trip to
Ukraine. Were you with him?

Ms. Davis. I was with him.

Chairman Hamilton. Did we discuss with them a specific dead-
line for ratification of START and the Nonproliferation Treaty?

Ms. Davis. We come away discouraged that Ukraine has not
been willing to place a time in carrying out their commitments
under the Lisbon Protocol, President Kravchuk made a personal
commitment to the Secretary to place before the Rada in this ses-
sion, the START I Treaty for ratification, and indicated his agree-
ment to that ratification as well as their adherence to the Non-
proliferation Treaty as a nonnuclear state.

Chairman Hamilton. Can he make that policy stick?

Ms. Davis. That is, Mr. Chairman, as if you asked me whether
it is always the case that President Clinton can make stick the
policies of our administration when they come before the Congress.
Quite frankly, there is a debate going on in the Ukraine. Secretary
Christopher also met with leaders of the Rada. They spoke about
their commitment as well to carrying out the commitments
Ukraine made under the Lisbon Protocol.

Chairman Hamilton. What did they say to you?

Ms. Davis. They said that they believed that the Rada would
make good on those commitments.

Chairman Hamilton. When?

Ms. Davis. But they did not themselves place or give us a com-
mitment to a specific time. That doesn't mean, Mr. Chairman

Chairman Hamilton. Were they going to make good on the com-
mitment some time in the near future? What are they waiting for?

Ms. Davis. Well, they are waiting for, by their own statements,
confidence in the security of Ukraine. And we have discussed with
them the kinds of assurances that not only the United States but
also Russia, other parties to the NPT, other nuclear parties to the
NPT, are prepared to make to them as part of their becoming ad-
herents to the Nonproliferation Treaty. In that context. Secretary
Christopher also

Chairman Hamilton. Well, if they are waiting for the security
of the Ukraine, that is a pretty nebulous thing. We could be wait-
ing a long time, couldn't we?

Ms. Davis. Well, actually, we argue from a somewhat different
perspective, Mr. Chairman. That is that their security is made
more — they are made more secure by carrying out their commit-
ments in the international community, gaining the assurances
that

SECURITY COMMITMENTS TO UKRAINE

Chairman Hamilton. They are not buving that argument?

Ms. Davis. They are still discussing their security concerns with
us. I think the Clinton administration's proposals for a Partnership
for Peace in the context of transforming NATO, are an additional
step that the United States and NATO will be making in terms of
providing security to Ukraine as it takes these important steps to
become a nonnuclear state.

Chairman Hamilton. You are not suggesting that we are going
to provide them the kind of security commitments given to mem-
bers of NATO, are you?

Ms. Davis. The security assurances that we are prepared to pro-
vide to Ukraine are those consistent with our commitments within
the CSCE.

Chairman Hamilton. What kind of security commitment to
Ukraine are we talking about here?

Ms. Davis. We are talking about the kinds of security assurances
that we provide to nonnuclear members of the NPT and to the as-
surances that we provide as members of the CSCE.

Chairman Hamilton. Well, what kind of assurances are we talk-
ing about?

Ms. Davis. It says that those states that are nonnuclear parties
to the Nonproliferation Treaty can be assured that the nuclear
weapons states will not use nuclear weapons or threaten their use
against them. I think that is a very important step that Russia and
the United States would be making

Chairman Hamilton. We are not making any assurance against
a conventional attack?

Ms. Davis. At this point, we would be offering assurances of co-
operation in times of threats to their security.

Chairman Hamilton. What does that mean?

Ms. Davis. They are not going to become members of NATO, Mr.
Chairman, so we are not making the kinds of security commit-
ments and guarantees that we have to our allies within that alli-
ance. But again

Chairman Hamilton. What does cooperation mean in that in-
stance? Suppose Ukraine is attacked? What would our obligation
be under the assurances you are talking about?

Ms. Davis. We would hope that we would — would not find us in
such a stark situation, but you are right to ask us clearly what it
is that we would be saying to Ukraine. We would be saying to
Ukraine, as we do to other members of the Conference on Security
and Cooperation in Europe, that we would object and we would
find fault with changes in boundaries not done by peaceful means.

But the kinds of security commitments that are part of our alHance
with respect to NATO, are of a different order.

Chairman Hamilton. But we would not be under any obhgation
to send U.S. miHtary forces?

Ms. Davis. That is correct.

WEAPONS DISMANTLEMENT ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE

Chairman Hamilton. Now, I understand our poHcy is to begin
weapons dismantlement assistance to Ukraine before it ratines
START or the NPT; is that correct?

Ms. Davis. That is correct.

Chairman Hamilton. And that is a change of policy from the
previous administration.

Ms. Davis. That is our current policy and that is our policy be-
cause we believe that it is essential to begin the processes of dis-
mantlement and that has our highest priority.

Chairman Hamilton. You think that policy is working?

Ms. Davis. Well, the first step was taken when Secretary Chris-
topher visited Kiev and that is that Ukraine signed the umbrella
agreement which is necessary to begin our assistance to their ef-
forts to dismantle.

Chairman Hamilton. OK Mr. Smith.

CONVENTIONAL ARMS TRANSFERS POLICY

Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
Davis, I would like to note that in your prepared testimony, you
talk a great deal about nonproliferation goals with regards to the
weapons of mass destruction. It seems to me, there is very little
about conventional arms transfers proliferation other than as ap-
plies to the administration's plans for a revamped COCOM. I would
note parenthetically, that it was some $33 billion worth of foreign
military sales in the last fiscal year, up from about $15 before that.
My question is, especially since the President likewise in his Sep-
tember 27 statement made very little reference to conventional
arms transfers or sales, if you could address where the priority is.
I know there has been an indication that there is some kind of a
study that is underway. Could you elaborate on that substitute?

Who is doing it? Where it is? When do you expect it to be com-
pleted?

And secondly, elaborate as well on the administration's view on
conventional arms transfers.

Ms. Davis. You were right to notice that I didn't have great de-
tails with respect to our overall policies on arms transfers. The
President has directed an interagency and NSC-directed study to
lay out our overall policies, and we are working toward the goal of
having that done by the end of this year. But let me say that one
can have policies with respect to trade in arms before one has for-
mal overall policies, and we have been working since we arrived to
place restraints and get others to place restraints on sales to coun-
tries of particular concern. Iran, Iraq we were talking about earlier.

So I don't want to leave you the impression that just because we
haven't completed our overall study that we haven't been taking
this question seriously. But as you also know, the whole issue of
arms trade gets into a balancing of a variety of different consider-

ations, having to do with nonproliferation, jobs at home, our indus-
tries that produce arms, the whole set of transitions that they are
going through. And so in our study, we will be seeking to balance
those various considerations.

ARMS SALES TO THE MIDDLE EAST

Mr. Smith. Let me ask you to focus briefly on the Middle East.
Obviously, there is great deal of hope and expectation there with
the recent signing between the PLO and Israel, but it would seem
that the prospects of considerable arms sales to the Middle East
will be unabated. Some industry analysts put it as high as $80 bil-
lion pouring in over the next 5 years into the Middle East in terms
of conventional arms. In your view, is that accurate, and what can
we be doing or what should we be doing to try to curb that massive
inflow of conventional armaments to the Middle East?

Ms. Davis. I don't have those projections — ^but let me talk as to
how I see the role of arms sales in that critical region. Arms sales
are appropriate to responsible allies, and that is where our sales
have been going in the follow-on to the Gulf War, and to allay the
insecurities in the Middle East and the Gulf felt by the threats
posed by Iran among other the states. So security is tied to respon-
sible arms sales. And we certainly are going to continue to provide
those to our key allies and friends in that region.

But as we work through and accomplish what our goals with re-
spect to bringing peace in that new environment are, clearly, we
look at the kinds of sales that would be appropriate. So the answer
to your question is the Middle East peace process is a real oppor-
tunity to bring peace, and in that context, there is a role for arms
control.

There is a role for arms restraint, but let no one doubt that we
would be prepared to transfer those arms necessary for the security
of our friends and allies in that region.

Mr. Smith. One final question, if I could?

Chairman Hamilton. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Smith. I would be happy to yield.

Chairman Hamilton. Madam Secretary, we are pouring arms
into the Middle East. Do you find it difficult to urge others to prac-
tice restraint in conventional arms sales around the world, or to
the Middle East, given that we are such a massive seller of arms?
How can we have credibility with other nations if we are ourselves
a major exporter of arms?

Ms. Davis. We can have credibility by the fact that the transfers
that we are making are for legitimate security reasons and they
are not done to those countries that

Chairman Hamilton. Madam Secretary, I have never heard of
an arms sale being made that wasn't justified on the basis of a le-
gitimate national security need.

Ms. Davis. I would hope that that would be

Chairman Hamilton. That is an automatic rationale for every
sale. I am just asking, if we pour these arms in ourselves, do you
find that a handicap as you urge other nations to restrain arms
sales?

Ms. Davis. Some will use that argument against our proposals,
but again it is in the — it is in the context of now we see security,

how what we restrain contributes to security and peace, and how
in a multilateral way among the major suppliers that together we
can use our policies with respect to sales and to their restraint to
assert peace and security. That would be

PROSPECTS FOR RESTRAINT ON CONVENTIONAL ARMS TRANSFERS

Chairman Hamilton. What kind of progress are you making in
getting the suppliers to restrain conventional arms sales?

Ms. Davis. So far, we are working simply for a regime in which
we would consult, in which there would be prior notification of
sales, there would be information sharing. That in my view, Mr.
Chairman, is the very important first step, and on the basis of
that

Chairman Hamilton. That is working now, is it? There is a
prenotification procedure in place among tne principal suppliers?

Ms. Davis. No. These are the goals we are seeking as we put in
place a successor regime to COCOM.

Chairman Hamilton. I see. Do you expect to get that
prenotification regime in?

Ms. Davis. Let me say, I am still of the view that I can succeed,
but I am not there yet.

Chairman Hamilton. We have had negotiations among the per-
manent five on conventional arms transfers. Are those talks still
going forward?

Ms. Davis. Those talks have been stalled by the fact that the
Chinese withdrew from such talks following on the sale of F-16's
to Taiwan.

Chairman Hamilton. Do you have any plans for reviving those
talks?

Ms. Davis. Rather than reviving the talks among the five, we see
the successor regime to COCOM as the appropriate group that
would now seek the kinds of consultations and prior notification
that I just described. So we wouldn't just have the five who supply
arms but the major suppliers which goes beyond the five.

Chairman HAMILTON. So you are folding that permanent five ne-
gotiation into the negotiations for a successor to COCOM.

Ms. Davis. As a way of moving beyond that set of discussions
that had essentially stalled by the fact that the Chinese were not
participating.

SALE OF RUSSIAN SUBMARINES TO IRAN

Chairman Hamilton. Mr. Smith, I am intruding on your time.
Let me ask one other question. We have been very exercised about
the sale of submarines by Russia to Iran. Russia says that is a le-
gitimate sale for legitimate self-defense purposes there.

Are we in any way undercut when we object to the Russians
about that sale, ^ven our own sales to the region?

Ms. Davis. It is not a question of whether they come back with
that but whether or not we seek

Chairman Hamilton. That is not my question.

Ms. Davis. We can have debating points but the real point here
is

Chairman Hamilton. I am asking what the Russians say? Do
they raise that question?

Ms. Davis. They would use that argument, and it is not persua-
sive. And I don't think that

Chairman Hamilton. And if it is not persuasive?

Ms. Davis. Because the dangers Iran poses are very serious and
we seek to keep the trade in arms to Iran from occurring.

Chairman Hamilton. That is not persuasive to the Russians, I
presume?

Ms. Davis. Well, at this point, they still are trading in arms with
Iran. But one of our goals, again with respect to the follow-on re-
gime in COCOM, where we hope very much that Russia will par-
ticipate, that part of that regime will be a policy of restraint in
arms trade to Iran,

PROBLEM OF CONVENTIONAL ARMS TRANSFERS

Chairman HAMILTON. I noticed in the President's September 27
proposal, there is no initiative there with respect to conventional
arms, other than to conduct a studv. That would suggest to me that
you don't rank very highly the problem of conventional arms trans-
fers. And, of course, the obvious point is that most wars are fought
with conventional arms. That is where the real dangers are or have
been in the past.

Ms. Davis. I am not sure I would agree with you that those are
the most serious dangers.

Chairman Hamilton. Well, those are the types of weapons that
kill the most people, aren't they?

Ms. Davis. PartW because we have been successful in preventing
the proliferation of even more dangerous arms: nuclear weapons.

Chairman Hamilton. Doesn't that mean you have to pay some
attention to conventional arms transfers and do something more
than just study the problem?

Ms. Davis. I hope that by "our studying," doesn't suggest that we
don't care about it.

Chairman Hamilton. Do you have a program to follow through?

Ms. Davis. We have a study and we will

Chairman Hamilton. When will you have recommendations on
that study?

Ms. Davis. We are aiming for the end of the year.

Chairman Hamilton. Very good. I look forward to seeing them.

Mr. Smith, I thank you for your courtesies here.

PROSPECTS FOR POST-COCOM CONVENTIONAL ARMS CONTROL

Mr. Smith. Thank you. I appreciate your questions, Mr. Chair-
man.

Secretary Davis, let me just ask you if the administration contin-
ues to focus on conventional arms sales issues in the context of an
export control agreement to replace COCOM, do we risk losing our
objective in the export control area, in your view?

Ms. Davis. I think this is the way oy which we accomplish our
objectives because it is very hard to do this alone. The new world
is a world in which many produce these technologies and ulti-
mately can produce these arms, so it is really working together
that we will be successful without saying that we won't take these
steps necessarily ourselves were we to see some very dangerous
things happening.

76-043 0-94-3

RECONCILING ARMS SALES WITH ARMS CONTROL

Mr. Smith. One thing, and just to pick up on what the chairman
was saying, because I was focusing on conventional arms myself
and the seeming lack of focus on that.

How do our allies regard the United States when we preach non-
proliferation and talk about it and then set records for actually
selling those arms? As the chairman pointed out, every arms sale
has some kind of national securitization rationale affixed to it. And
you did mention there is that domestic job issue which, obviously,
when you get beyond our own borders, has absolutely no moral
suasion or any other suasion you could give to it. What do you say?
You could argue that we arm the world and then we talk non-
proliferation.

Ms. Davis. Well, I think when we think about our policies for the
sales of arms, which I was describing to you earlier, a number of
considerations come to play and we need to balance those off. These
are clearlv part of the balancing that the Secretary and the Presi-
dent do. And so it is hard for me in the abstract to talk about over-
all levels in general conversations that we have about arms re-
straint. I think is is more important to look at dangers, to look at
particular policies tailored to those dangers, and I think you will
find us having a very good record in focusing on Iran, Iraq, particu-
larly, trying to bring a restraint regime to these regions of the
world.

URGING RESTRAINT ON CONVENTIONAL ARMS SALES

Mr. Smith. Well, just two final questions. The chairman pointed
out that the wars that are going on today are being obviously pros-
ecuted with the use of conventional arms. I remember how it dis-
turbed me to no end when I was in Bjelovar and Sisak in the
former Yugoslavia, and MiG's were flying overhead as Congress-
man Frank Wolf and I were there. We went and observed firsthand
and photographed bomb fragments of U.S. -made 500-pound bombs
that had been used by the Serbian military to kill civilians. And
it raised again anew the prospects of who may be our friends now,
and sometime in the not too distant future, could be our enemies,
or the enemies of our friends. And you know the big picture of arm-
ing the world ad nauseam does greatly disturb me.

CHINESE CONVENTIONAL ARMS SALES

And one final question, if I could. The administration has right-
fully and with appropriate alarm, raised concerns about China's
technological transfer of missile technology issues, the detonation
of a nuclear weapon. Are there any Chinese acquisitions or sales
of conventional arms that caused the administration concern?

Ms. Davis. Again, we do, when we talk with the Chinese, and
this is one of the reasons that we have sought to revive the talks
on conventional arms in the P-5, and they have rejected that, so
I didn't want to leave the impression that we don't care about con-
versations with the Chinese on conventional arms, we do. And in
areas, particularly with Iran, we raise our concerns.

So the answer to your question is that we have a nonprolifera-
tion policy with respect to China that covers the full range of ac-

tivities. We have just given priority to two that we thought particu-
larly dangerous.

Mr. Smith. I thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Hamilton. You yield back the balance of your time?

Mr. Smith. Right.

Chairman Hamilton. Mr. Oilman.

STATEMENT OF MR. OILMAN

Mr. Oilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I join in welcoming Under Secretary Davis and representatives
from the Departments of Defense, Commerce, Energy, and ACDA
to the committee testifying on this important issue of nonprolifera-
tion.

As I have said on other occasions, there is no more critical threat
facing our Nation than the proliferation of not only weapons of
mass destruction but also of conventional arms.

Whether it be the grave situation in North Korea or the continu-
ing problems in getting programs underway in the former Soviet
Union, or the troubling levels of worldwide conventional arms
transfers, it is absolutely fundamental that we get this policy right.

The problem with North Korea has reached a particularly acute
stage. I think there is general agreement in the Congress that
North Korea must not be allowed to succeed in its efforts to de-
velop nuclear weapons and that we must make clear the serious-
ness with which we view this problem.

I am introducing legislation today that is very important to sup-
port the President s efforts to rein in the North Korean nuclear pro-
gram. My legislation not only expresses congressional support for
the steps the President has undertaken but also approves and en-
courages use by him of any additional means necessary to prevent
the development, acquisition, or use by North Korea of any nuclear
weaponry. I hope my legislation receives the support of the admin-
istration as well as my colleagues.

I was pleased to note both the President's remarks before the
U.N. on this subject, as well as the inclusion of nonproliferation in
Secretary Christopher's "six priorities of U.S. foreign policy." How-
ever, I feel compelled to say that I am disappointed it took the ad-
ministration nearly 9 months to articulate its overall policy objec-
tives, and certainly many, if not most, of the critical details have
yet to come.

Secretary Davis, I would also like to note that your prepared tes-
timony discusses extensively nonproliferation goals with regard to
weapons of mass destruction but very little about conventional
arms transfer and its proliferation, other than as applies to the ad-
ministration's plans for a revamped COCOM.

The President also gave this issue very little attention in his
speech to the U.N. Greneral Assembly other than indicating that
our Nation will undertake a comprehensive review of conventional
arms transfer policy.

Accordingly, I would like to address a few questions in that direc-
tion today. Again, I thank you for coming before the committee
with your staff.

OSLO MEETING ON SUCCESSOR REGIME TO COCOM

Mr. Oilman. Secretary Davis, are you prepared to brief our staff
in regard to the recent Oslo meeting concerning the follow-on re-
gime to COCOM?

Ms. Davis. We would be happy to brief your staff in some detail
Congressman Oilman, and indeed we have a number of high-level
meetings in the coming weeks in which we hope to bring to conclu-
sion our efforts with respect to future constraints on strategic
trade.

Mr. Oilman. Well, we understand the press reports are now cir-
culating describing that meeting and we would welcome an early
briefing to our people with regard to that.

RUSSIAN COMPLIANCE WITH MTCR

Could you describe for the committee the extent of Russian Chi-
nese cooperation in strategic matters including the transfer of ma-
terials governed by the Missile Technology Control Regime, co-
operation in nuclear testing, sharing of design information on re-
entry vehicles, et cetera. Didn't the administration earlier this year
notify the Congress of a violation of the MTCR by Russia in that
area, and what can you tell us about the follow-up on that?

Ms. Davis. We did, under the provisions of the legislation, report
to Congress a finding that that particular activity had occurred,
but following on the Russian Oovernment's negotiation of a bilat-
eral agreement between the United States and Russia in which
they committed to carrying out the provisions of the MTCR from
the 1st of November, we waived the sanctions under the law con-
sistent with the goals of that law, which is to keep and to prevent
the proliferation of missiles and missile technologies to countries
which today don't have such missiles and missile technology.

Mr. Oilman. For how long a period of time did we grant the
waiver?

Ms. Davis. Well, the waiver continues now as long as the Rus-
sians are in compliance with the provisions of the MTCR regime.

Mr. Oilman. Are you providing oversight with regard to their
continuation of compliance?

Ms. Davis. It is very high on my list of activities. And indeed,
through discussions and technical interchanges between our t^vo
countries, we are working through the details by which they will
carry out the provisions of that regime and, indeed, had very good
conversations most recently in Moscow when I was there with the
Secretary.

Mr. Oilman. Are you satisfied they are complying now?

Ms. Davis. I am now satisfied that they are. We are working to-
gether, though, to ensure that for the future.

THE FUTURE OF MTCR

Mr. Oilman. What is our policy vision for the future of the Mis-
sile Technology Control Regime? Do you plan to seek expansion of
MTCR to be a tighter, more inclusive regime, and has MTCR been
an effective regime to halt the proliferation of missile technology?

Ms. Davis. Well, as I said in my prepared statement, we are
looking to a regime in the future that goes beyond simply control-

ling individually our trade in missile and missile technologies by
partners, to a regime that would be more active and working to-
gether as a team to prevent that proliferation. So we wish to give
the regime energy and we wish to give it a set of activities, both
to encourage other countries not to trade in these kinds of missiles
and missile technologies, but also possibly to bring costs to bear for
those who carry out those activities.

POLICY ON SPACE-LAUNCH VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Oilman. Secretary Davis, can you tell us how the adminis-
tration is setting policy concerning the export of space-launch vehi-
cle technology to try to limit the possibility of those exports being
used for weapon purposes? What is your strategy for allowing
MTCR parties to have access to U.S. space-launch vehicle tech-
nology and prevent reduced proliferation risks?

One further thought with regard to that, is your basic tradeoff
to create incentives for parties to join the MTCR by allowing them
access to U.S. space-launch technology?

Ms. Davis. Our goal is very much as it has been in the past, and
that is to prevent the transfer of missiles and missile technologies,
set our sights on that as our goal, and that is unchanged. Indeed,
we believe that over the past few months that we have given en-
ergy to that particular set of goals.

We have demonstrated that we are prepared to raise the costs
to those who violate the provisions of that regime. So the direction
of your questioning might suggest that we are in some ways lessen-
ing our commitment to that or to our goals. And in no way is this
administration doing that with respect to the MTCR regime.

determination on CHINESE VIOLATION OF MTCR

Mr. Oilman. Can you tell us exactly what determination the ad-
ministration has made in the case of China and the MTCR? And
what sanctions have been invoked and which American companies
are hit by those sanctions? Why is it taking so long to make a de-
termination? Can you tell us when you expect a decision?

Ms. Davis. There has been no time since the determination in
which the sanctions have not gone into place, so let me just begin
by saying that we made the determination in August, that activi-
ties inconsistent with the MTCR regime and also inconsistent with
our legislation had occurred, and by that determination, Category
II sanctions are in place. And so at this point, I can say that there
has been no lag in carrying out the law.

At the same time, we said to the Chinese Oovernment, that
under the provisions of that law, were they to come into compliance
with the regime and also to end any transfers to Pakistan, that we
would place ourselves in a position to waive those sanctions. So the
policy stands from the time of its determination.

SANCTIONS ON SATELLITE COMPONENTS INTENDED FOR CHINESE

SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES

Mr. Oilman. Secretary Davis, on October 25, in a briefing, you
noted that regarding the imposition of sanctions against China and
Pakistan, you said that the best way to — well, let me just get to

the important part. Apart from the legal statement, let me tell you
what is going to be the effect, and that is for satellite components
that will be laimched on Chinese launchers or boosters, license for
these activities will be denied over the coming 2 years.

Does your statement still hold?

Ms. Davis. I think the statement follows from the law in which
the sanctioned activities require us to deny new export licenses for
MTCR-annexed items, both munitions and dual-use items. So con-
sistent with the law and consistent with that statement, we will be
carrying out the licensing consistent with the practices of the State
Department and the Commerce Department.

Mr. Oilman. When do you anticipate that those regulations will
be issued?

Ms. Davis. It is not a question of issuing regulations, it is a ques-
tion of responding to licenses as they come to each of these Depart-
ments.

Mr. Oilman. Are there any license applications now?

Ms. Davis. I would like to take that for the record and only to
say that I can assure you that we are carrying out the sanctions
as required by the law.

[The information follows:]

Since the announcement of the missile proliferation sanctions against specified
Chinese entities and governmental activities, the Office of Defense Trade Controls
has "returned without action" six license applications falling within the purview of
the sanctions. There are no applications pending before the Office of Defense Trade
Controls which fall clearly within the purview of the sanctions.

NUMBER OF EXPORT LICENSES DENIED SINCE IMPOSITION OF

SANCTIONS ON CHINA

Mr. Oilman. Well, are there any licenses that have been denied
as a result of these violations?

Ms. Davis. No licenses have been permitted since the determina-
tion of those sanctions.

Mr. Oilman. How many are pending?

Ms. Davis. My recollection is there are some six but let me again
provide that for the record.

Mr. Oilman. With that, Mr. Chairman, I request that the re-
sponse be submitted for the record and be included in the record.

Chgiirman Hamilton. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information follows:]

The Office of Defense Trade Controls reviews license applications on an ongoing
basis to determine whether they fall within the scope of the sanctions. As of Novem-
ber 29, one application was under review to determine whether it is covered by the
sanctions.

PROPOSED AIRCRAFT SALE TO ISRAEL

Mr. Oilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just one last question. Madam Secretan^, do you plan to notify
Congress in the coming weeks or months about a proposed F-15 or
F-16 package to Israel?

Ms. Davis. I was asked earlier. Congressman, as to who has re-
sponsibility from the government for various activities. Coming up
to me will be a proposal — coming to me are proposals for such

transfers. None has come to me and so I would wish not to make
any projections or promises with respect to that.

Mr. Oilman. Are you saying that you don't have such a proposal
before you?

Ms. Davis. I do not have today such a proposal before me. I un-
derstand that these are very much under consideration. The nar-
row statement that I have made to you is that I, myself, haven't
received the proposals in this regard.

U.S. COMPANIES AFFECTED BY SANCTIONS ON CHINA

Chairman Hamilton. Would the gentleman yield a moment?

Mr. Oilman. Yes, I would be pleased to yield.

Chairman Hamilton. I wanted to go back to your question on
sanctions with respect to China.

What American companies are hit by those sanctions?

Ms. Davis. Let me — let me begin by saying that under the legis-
lation which calls for these sanctions, the legislation specifically
says that the economic impact of sanctions cannot be a part of de-
termination. The determination needs to be made when the evi-
dence is there that such activities have occurred. And so in making
this determination, I didn't have before me the list of companies
and the particular activities that would be sanctioned. That follows
on from the determination, so . don't hold in my head the names
of the companies or the specific licenses that are out there. I can
provide that for the record if you would wish.

[The information follows:]

The Office of Defense Trade Controls has "returned without action" applications
from the following companies in accordance with the sanctions: Hughes Aircraft,
Martin Marietta, and Scientific Atlanta.

Chairman Hamilton. Isn't the Hughes Company one of them?

Ms. Davis. There are satellites that Hughes makes. There are
satellites that other companies make as well.

Chairman Hamilton. Isn't Hughes one of them?

Ms. Davis. Hughes I believe is one of these.

Chairman Hamilton. Is Hughes the most important one?

Ms. Davis. I don't know how one would judge the relative impor-
tance.

Chairman Hamilton. Well, dollar volume would be one way.

Ms. Davis. It might be and again, Mr. Chairman, I don't have
this in my head and would have to provide that for you.

Chairman Hamilton. You do not know whether Hughes is the
top company involved here by dollar volume standard, for example?

Ms. Davis. I do not know that, but I can provide you that.

[The information follows:]

The value of the Hughes licenses which the OfTice of Defense Trade Controls has
"returned without action" exceeds that of other U.S. firms' Ucenses. The specific dol-
lar amounts of the licenses are proprietary data and cannot be disclosed.

Chairman Hamilton. What other company might be involved?

Ms. Davis. Martin-Marietta might have some satellites, and
there is — there could be some other firms that in the course of
these 2 years had either satellites or items on this list of exports
which would be denied under the sanctions provision.

STATUS OF EXPORT LISCENSE APPLICATIONS FOR MTCR-ANNEXED

ITEMS

Chairman Hamilton. When are you going to make a decision?

Ms. Davis. I am not sure which decision you are referring to.

Chairman Hamilton. Well, are you

Ms. Davis. The sanctions are in place, Mr. Chairman. We have
made that determination.

Chairman Hamilton. So you are denying Hughes, at this point,
the ability to export to China?

Ms. Davis. We are required under the law to deny new export
licenses for MTCR-annex items. We are carrying out the law.

Chairman Hamilton. So it is not even under review at this
point? A determination has been made, Hughes will not make the
sale, period; is that correct?

Ms. Davis. That is not what I said. I have said that Hughes

Chairman Hamilton. I am trying to understand. You said that
there was no decision to be made. Hughes cannot make the sale
under the law, and you are not reviewing it. It is just a fait
accompli. Is that right?

Ms. Davis. I am being hesitant not because I — it is just not for
me to make that determination. The law says that we will deny li-
censes for entities that have MTCR items. The second point is
when the licenses

Chairman Hamilton. I am trying to understand this. The law
applies to Hughes. They cannot sell. Is that the status of the law?

Ms. Davis. It would depend on what it is that Hughes was ask-
ing to license. If they are asking to license a satellite that includes
items that are denied by the State Department, they will not be
able to make that sale. But I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that
they have brought those licenses up for review.

AGENCY JURISDICTION FOR EXPORT LICENSE APPROVAL

Chairman Hamilton. Now, the Commerce Department is looking
at this; are they?

Ms. Davis. llie Commerce Department also

Chairman Hamilton. Who is the spokesmen for the Commerce
Department here? What is the status of this sale by Hughes, Mr.
Clements?

Mr. Clements. Mr. Chairman, currently these matters are under
the sole prerogative of the Department of State because they are
licensed by the State Department. They are not licensed by the
Commerce Department.

Chairman Hamilton. So you are playing no role in it?

Mr. Clements. We generally do not play a direct role in the li-
censes for munition items, no.

Chairman Hamilton. What do you mean "generally"? I am talk-
ing specifically.

Mr. Clements. In this case, no.

Chairman Hamilton. You have no role in this case? Commerce
has played no role here?

Mr. Clements. In the consideration of these licenses, no.

Chairman Hamilton. For Hughes?

Mr. Clements. That is correct.

Chairman Hamilton. And so far as you are concerned, the deci-
sion rests with State, and the President, of course?

Mr. Clements. Under the current state of regulations, those h-
censes have to be issued by the Department of State.

Ms. Davis. Are you asking, Mr. Chairman

Chairman Hamilton. Did you know anything about this sale?

Mr. Clements. Mr. Chairman, we are not aware of the status of
the consideration of the licenses within the Department of State.
Hughes does not come to the Department of Commerce because
they do not require Department of Commerce authorization in
order to export those satellites.

Ms. Davis. Also, Mr. Chairman

law mandates denial of export license for hughes satellites

Chairman HAMILTON. What I am trying to understand is the gov-
ernment denjdng Hughes the opportunity to sell these satellites to
China.

Ms. Davis. The administration is carrying out the law having
made the sanctions determination and that is to deny new export
licenses for MTCR-annex items.

Chairman HAMILTON. And that applies to Hughes?

Ms. Davis. And that applies to Hughes, although, Mr. Chairman,
I don't believe the licenses

Chairman Hamilton. Now, that decision is not under review. It
has been made. You feel compelled to do that, I think I understood
you to say a moment ago, by the law?

Ms. Davis. I do.

Chairman Hamilton. And so there is no further decision to be
made. Hughes is out of the game?

Ms. Davis. That is correct, as long as they are — the reason I am
not being as precise as you would wish me to be, perhaps, is the
sanctions apply to MTCR-annex items so there are activities that
Hughes could be carrying out that wouldn't fall under this sanc-
tion.

Chairman Hamilton. But what they have asked to sell would
come under these sanctions; is that correct?

Ms. Davis. Satellites with MTCR-annex items that come before
the State Department will be denied.

Chairman Hamilton. And have been denied?

Ms. Davis. I don't believe they have come. Were they to come,
they would be denied.

Chairman HAMILTON. They would be denied. And the decision is
not under review?

Ms. Davis. The decision isn't under review.

Chairman HAMILTON. If I understood you correctly, you don't feel
like you have any discretion.

Ms. Davis. I do not believe under the law that I have any discre-
tion. Can I try a somewhat more philosophical response because I
think in this case the law provides us with no flexibility? It cer-
tainly doesn't provide us with any flexibility in making a deter-
mination under the law with respect to its economic effects. It has
had the consequence of affecting American jobs and I would like to
work with the committee to be sure that we and the committee are

both comfortable with the character of our goals and the sanctions
that are required to meet those goals.

PROSPECTS FOR CHANGE IN THE LAW

Chairman Hamilton. Are you recommending any change in the
law?

Ms. Davis. I am not making any recommendation, but I think it
is time to

Chairman Hamilton. Are you satisfied with the law?

Ms. Davis. I inherited the law and I have been carrying out the
law, and it is clearly the case

Chairman Hamilton. But if that law works against U.S. com-
mercial interests, you would recommend a change; would you not?

Ms. Davis. I believe it serves our nonproliferation goals, and I
am confident that those goals are critical to our national security
and we need to accomplish those goals. The effect of the particular
regime of sanctions may have consequences that we ought to think
again about, given that it is having an effect on American jobs.

Chairman Hamilton. So are you reviewing possible amendments
or modifications to the law?

Ms. Davis. We started to talk with your staff, Mr. Chairman,
about this legislation and how we view it, now having come
through these various diplomatic efforts to accomplish our goals,
these nonproliferation goals that are central to our administration
and also central to this legislation.

Chairman Hamilton. So you are looking at modifications of the
law?

Ms. Davis. We would like to come in and begin to talk to you
about this, but I don't have a view at this point and I don't think
it is appropriate to have a view at this point.

Chairman Hamilton. OK

Mr. Royce.

items subject to mtcr-related sanctions

Mr. Oilman. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Hamilton. I am sorry. I took Mr. Oilman's time. I
apologize.

Mr. Oilman. Thank you, Mr. Royce.

Just one or two questions.

Madam Secretary, if you are going to propose any rewrite of the
law, I just would like to remind you that our staffs are beginning
to work on the new foreign aid measure now and will be doing sub-
stantial work between now and January, so we would hope that
you would come forward at an early date.

Let me just understand something. Are satellites now under the
MTCR, the jurisdiction of MTCR?

Ms. Davis. Let me ask you to — again, I am not a lawyer so I
don't know precisely what you are trying to ask.

Mr. Oilman. Tell us what is in your mind and let us hear what
your concerns are.

Ms. Davis. Satellites are not listed as an item in the guidelines
and provisions and annex of MTCR, but items on that list can often
be in satellites.

Mr. Oilman. So the component parts are on the list but the sat-
ellite is itself is not, that is what you are saying?

Ms. Davis. That is correct.

Mr. Oilman. That doesn't seem to make sense.

Ms. Davis. Truthfully, I didn't write the annex to this particular
provision, but I think what they were trying to get at were the
kinds of items that contribute to the making of missiles and tech-
nologies, and a satellite, as a whole, doesn't itself — is not a missile
and it is not itself a direct contributor, but items embedded within
a satellite, taken out of a satellite and then put into a missile, can
be turned

Mr. Oilman. Is Hughes' application for building a satellite?

Ms. Davis. Yes.

Mr. Oilman. Yet you deny them a license because the component
parts could be used for something else?

Ms. Davis. Because the law requires us to once sanctions are de-
termined, once a violation is determined and sanctions go in, that
is what the law requires.

Mr. Oilman. Well, assume that Hughes company, or whatever
other company, could satisfy the licensing people that all of the
component parts are going to be used for a satellite and not for any
missile technology, would you then be in a position to issue a li-
cense?

Ms. Davis. I could ask you and those of you who drafted this law,
whether that was how you saw the intent, but the law itself doesn't
suggest that I have that much — that I have that much flexibility.

Mr. Oilman. It would seem to me that rational reasoning would
apply here if the company can show, whatever company it may be,
that what they are doing is manufacturing a satellite and not man-
ufacturing any missiles, that there ought to be some discretion in
your review.

Ms. Davis. So that we can work together to make sure that the
legislation is consistent with the goals that we would wish.

FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF EXPORT LICENSE DENL\L

Mr. Oilman. I hope we can do that, because it would seem to
me — do we have any idea what the cost estimate is for Hughes
being denied satellite production?

Ms. Davis. I don't have that myself, I am afraid. And, again, it
would depend on what precisely they would be wishing to apply in
terms of licenses.

Mr. Oilman. Didn't you make some estimate in your October
25th briefing of some $400 to $500 million as the cost of the loss
of this satellite production?

Ms. Davis. That wasn't Hughes specific. That was a general
sense of what the implications would be, absent changes in the
market and this was looking back at the kinds of activities and
then projecting those forward.

Mr. Oilman. I hope we can we define these things, and at the
same time, prevent missile proliferation, and at the same time,
allow the reasonable production of satellites within our country,
and we look forward to working with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

RATIONALE FOR EXPORT LICENSE DENIAL

Chairman Hamilton. Mr. Oilman.

I want to pursue this one more time. I am still wrestling with
this thing.

Satellites from Hughes were sold to third countries, as I under-
stand it. And those satellites were to be launched on Chinese mis-
siles. Hughes contends that these satellites are not transferred to
China?

Am I correct in my understanding that they are simply launched
on Chinese missiles?

Ms. Davis. Right.

Chairman Hamilton. Your contention is that the satellites are,
in fact, transferred to China; is that right?

Ms. Davis. That is the interpretation that we are making.

Chairman Hamilton. And

Ms. Davis. Because they come under — I mean, this is a contract
with China, so again I only — I tell you I am not a lawyer and this
is a matter of legal interpretation. Clearly, the lawyers have spent
some considerable time with this, but again I think what we need
to think about is that we were serving our overall nonproliferation
goals. What China had done was inconsistent with those, and very
dangerous. And this occurred with Pakistan, in a part of the world
where we already worry about the development of weapons of mass
destruction.

Chairman Hamilton. All right.

Mr. Royce.

ASSESSING NORTH KOREA'S NUCLEAR CAPABILITY

Mr. RoYCE. Yes, Mr. Chairman,

Director of Central Intelligence, James Woolsey, when he testi-
fied earlier in the year, indicated at that time, I think his words
were that the North Koreans probably, probably had the material
right now to build at least one bomb.

Now, you are apparently of the opinion that they are no longer
developing nuclear material, but let me ask you what assurances
you could give us that they are not at this time using the material
that they already have to build that bomb?

Ms. Davis. The material that you refer to and formed the basis
of Mr. Woolsey's statement, derives from the discrepancies that the
IAEA had found in the reporting and which led the IAEA to re-
quest these special inspections. These special inspections have not
occurred. And while we don't have any direct way of discovering
what they are doing with this material, obviously, our concerns
about that have led us to support very strongly the IAEA in wish-
ing to carry out those inspections.

ASSESSING NORTH KOREAN RESPONSE TO IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

Mr. RoYCE. Well, what is your assessment, if I could ask, of what
the North Korean response would be if you were to support sanc-
tions against North Korea until such time as you get those inspec-
tions?

Ms. Davis. It is very hard for me to predict the reaction. More
importantly, it is very important for North Korea to
understand

Mr. RoYCE. I understand that, but I am just asking, have you
made an assessment? Is there an assessment?

Ms. Davis. Because of the isolation and the uncertainties sur-
rounding that regime and what we know about that regime, we see
dangers if we move to a confrontation. On the other hand, we are
not going to allow the possibility of those dangers to stand in the
way of doing what is necessary to carry out our obligations both
with respect to the Nonproliferation Treatv and with respect to pre-
venting North Korea from developing the Domb.

Mr. KOYCE. For your own edincation, it seems to me that what
we are doing here is just treading water. That statement does not
answer the question even if we have made an assessment and what
we intend to do.

Ms. Davis. I don't think we are treading water. And let me be
quite clear, we have pursued diplomacy to this point under the con-
dition that North Korea has suspended its withdrawal from the
NPT and with confidence that they are not further developing nu-
clear material, so we are not treading water. We are seeking to
keep North Korea carrying out its obligations. And when we deter-
mine that they failed to do that, we have said, and others in the
international community have said that we will take this to the Se-
curity Council, with the next step being sanctions. So we are not
treading water.

Mr. RoYCE. And the bottom line is in the meantime we can't give
any assurances to anybody that they are not using that material
right now to build a bomb, and I just want to point that out.

Ms. Davis. That is consistent with what the intelligence commu-
nity would say to you as well.

Mr. RoYCE. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN NEGOTIATOR

Chairman Hamilton. Has a comprehensive test ban negotiator
been named yet, a chief negotiator?

Ms. Davis. We are proceeding to begin negotiations in the Con-
ference on Disarmament in January of 1994. Our current Ambas-
sador, Ambassador Ledogar will be conducting those negotiations
in that forum. Prior to tnat, I have been leading an interagency
team seeking to put together the elements of our proposals that we
would introduce at the time that those negotiations get underway.

Chairman Hamilton. So we have not yet appointed a

Ms. Davis. No, we have. Ambassador Ledogar will be conducting
the negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament.

Chairman Hamilton. He has been named as negotiator, is that
it?

Ms. Davis. He is our negotiator.

TIMEFRAME ON DISARMAMENT NEGOTIATIONS

Chairman Hamilton. What is the time line on those negotia-
tions?
Ms. Davis. Well, we

Chairman Hamilton. Are we going to have an agreement by
1995, of the NPT Review Conference, for example?

Ms. Davis. We wouldn't wish to link the two that closely so that
we hold one hostage to the other. Our goal is to have — ^to be as far
along as we can by 1995. I would hope to have the elements of such
a treaty in our overall goal, a treaty ready for ratification by 1996.

Chairman Hamilton. Those negotiations take place in Geneva,
the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, is that right?

Ms. Davis. That is correct.

STATUS OF TESTING MORATORIUM

Chairman Hamilton. Now, we have a testing moratorium in
place. Have other governments endorsed that? Are there some gov-
ernments that have not endorsed it?

Ms. Davis. A moratorium has been endorsed by the United
States, Russia, the U.K, and most recently by France extending
their commitment that President Mitterrand has made. The Chi-
nese have not joined in that moratorium, but in a resolution soon
to be passed by the United Nations General Assembly, a consensus
resolution will indicate, I believe, that restraint in testing serves
our goals of negotiating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Chairman Hamilton. Do you have any reason to think that
China is going to continue its nuclear tests?

Ms. Davis. The Chinese said they are not prepared to enter into
a moratorium. They understand that we would wish them not to
continue testing. We would wish that they exercise the restraint
currently being shown by the other nuclear powers.

But I think, Mr. Chairman, we can't let this issue stand in the
way of making good on the Chinese commitment made publicly at
the time of their recent test, that they wish to negotiate a com-
prehensive test ban by 1996 as well.

Chairman Hamilton. Well, what is your strategy for getting
China to stop further nuclear testing? How are you dealing with
that problem?

Ms. Davis. Well, in the first instance, we are consulting and
working closely with them toward the accomplishment of a test ban
treaty in which there would then be no further testing. So that is
our overall goal and in the interim, we are seeking both bilaterally
and through the support of others in the international community
that they exercise restraint.

Chairman Hamilton. What has been the Chinese response?
Have they said they are going to go ahead and test or are they
going to consider this request for restraint?

Ms. Davis. They have responded by suggesting they have done
a very small number of nuclear tests, far smaller than the other
nuclear powers, and they believe that they may wish to continue
to do some testing in coming years. But again, importantly, they
have committed themselves publicly now to a treaty in 1996.

Chairman Hamilton. Mr. Royce, do you have further questions?

FRENCH AND GERMAN SATELLITES ON CHINESE SPACE LAUNCH

VEHICLES

Mr. RoYCE. Mr. Chairman, just following up.

China and France, is it true that both countries have offered the
same arrangement, the same satelhte arrangement with China
that the United States is not pursuing? I mean, they are both
members ofMTCR.

Ms. Davis. The Chinese, unfortunately, are not members of
MTCR

Mr. ROYCE. Excuse me. The French and German companies, I as-
sume with French and German governmental support, have made
the offer, if I understand correctly, to the Chinese to step in and
offer the same satellite arrangement?

Ms. Davis. They don't have the same legislation that we have
with respect to

Mr. RoYCE. So even though they are members of MTCR, they are
not bound or their governments perceive that their companies are
not bound in the same way?

Ms. Davis. They are not bound because the legislation under
which we are denying these particular sales is our own unilateral
legislation on the part of the U.S. Government.

Mr. RoYCE. I see. I would point out that clearly France and Ger-
many are not helping in this circumstance. I would just ask if
you

Ms. Davis. We have gone to France and Grermany and asked
them not to undercut our policies and raised with them the dan-
gers of what China has been doing and we have tried to gain their
support.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

TIMEFRAME FOR PHASING OUT COCOM

Chairman Hamilton. On the COCOM, they go out of business at
the beginning of 1994; is that right?

Ms. Davis. We haven't determined a time in which we would
phaseout COCOM. Indeed, that is a question that has to do with
how we put in place the successor regime. We have not ourselves
committed to a successor to COCOM or those controls at this point,
Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Hamilton. You expect COCOM to go out of business
fairly soon?

Ms. Davis. We see ourselves as phasing this out in the coming
months, but I don't think we can say with precision exactly when
that will occur.

MEMBERSHIP IN SUCCESSOR REGIME TO COCOM

Chairman Hamilton. And you are going to try to put in its place
a new regime with former COCOM members and some of the East-
ern European countries?

Ms. Davis. The Newly Independent States, as well as Russia. We
would see Russia as a partner.

Chairman Hamilton. Russia as partner. Would China be a part
of this new regime?

Ms. Davis. We would set the same requirements for membership.
These requirements would be nondiscriminatory in the sense of ad-
herence to nonproliferation norms and adequate export controls. At

this point, China is not — its activities are not consistent with those
standards.

PROGRESS TOWARD ADOPTION OF NEW REGIME

Chairman Hamilton. Now, you are going to focus in this new re-
gime on this prenotification approach you were describing a Httle
earlier, and I suppose with regard to certain countries, at least,
just flat prohibitions with respect to arms sales?

Ms. Davis. That is correct.

Chairman Hamilton. Are most of the nations that we have
worked with in COCOM, the British the French and the others,
they are supportive of this new regime; are they?

Ms. Davis. We are making progress but we are not there yet.
Meetings will be held in the coming months in order to bring this
to a conclusion.

Chairman Hamilton. Why — do they have some hesitancy on this
and if so, what is it?

Ms. Davis. I think you know that some of our allies have always
been hesitant with respect to discussions and consultations prior to
the sales of arms as well as to the trade in dual-use technologies.
That is simply a fact, but we believe that the dangers are such and
the nature of the kinds of consultations and prior notifications that
we are seeking are responsible ways to move in the new world.

SUCESSOR regime TO BE BASED ON NATIONAL DISCRETION

Chairman Hamilton. Now, under COCOM, the United States
had a veto, in effect, on dual-use exports.

Ms. Davis. It was regime of consensus and therefore

Chairman Hamilton. It was veto operated, and the regime you
are thinking of putting into place, would it also operate by consen-
sus?

Ms. Davis. No. It is going to work on the basis of national discre-
tion and that, Mr. Chairman, is why we need to be absolutely con-
fident that we have the right regime in place before we phaseout
COCOM and end that consensual regime.

Chairman Hamilton. Would we in this new regime, then, lose
our veto?

Ms. Davis. A follow-on to COCOM would not be a regime in
which there will be consensus with respect to strategic trade.

Chairman Hamilton. So, in effect, we would not have a veto?

Ms. Davis. That is correct. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of
goals with respect to this regime, but that one I fear is not possible
to accomplish.

Chairman Hamilton. OK

Mr. Oilman.

allied sales to IRAN

Mr. Oilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have one area I would like to explore with the Secretary.
The comments conveyed from the G-7 Tokyo Economic Summit
stressed that our Nation and its allies have worked to coordinate
their policies with respect to Iran, specifically, to seek a change in
Iranian behavior in a number of areas.

Could you tell us what has been the record of allied cooperation
in that area since that summit meeting and what are the practical
implications of the EC Policy of Constructive Dialogue with Iran,
announced at that Summit in Edinburg?

Ms. Davis. Quite frankly, we haven't made the progress that we
might have wished. I think it is important to differentiate the var-
ious kinds of transfers and trade that we are focusing here on.
With respect to arms themselves

Mr. Oilman. Hasn't that been the primary focus on Grermanys
trade with Iran?

Ms. Davis. It is not arms that we are worried about because here
we have had success but rather trade in dual-use technologies and
items where we do have differences of view as to whether there
should be complete restraint with respect to that trade.

Mr. Oilman. I have before me a newsletter entitled the "Iran
Business Monitor," Volume Number 2, Number 6 of November
1993, and in it states that Siemens of Germany is currently com-
peting for contracts valued in the hundreds of millions of
deutschemarks on a digital communication network handling
500,000 lines.

The majority of the parts are to be produced in Shiraz and the
final decision is yet to be announced by the Telecommunications
Company of Iran. Have we been monitoring that proposal to find
out whether there is any COCOM concerns and could our own com-
panies sell the type of equipment to Iran under our export control
laws?

Ms. Davis. The regime on COCOM wouldn't be targeting Iran.
You recall that is the regime that targeted in the East-West con-
text the Soviet Union

Mr. Oilman. But by analogy, would those same restrictions apply
here?

Ms. Davis. They are not going to apply within the context of
COCOM. Again, what we are seeking to do in a successor regime
is to focus on these new strategic concerns, and Iran is clearly in
that category and working to constrain the trade in these dan-
gerous technologies to Iran in the specific case I have — I am not
familiar with the specific case, but clearly, we do care or else we
wouldn't be spending so much time and energy to seek these goals
with respect to the successor regime.

Mr. Oilman. Could Mr. Clements comment on this proposal?

Are you aware of it?

Mr. Clements. Congressman, I have no direct information about
the transaction. Under U.S. regulatory requirements, such a trans-
fer would require a license, and as you know, under the Iran Sanc-
tions Act, the Department of Commerce would not be authorized to
issue such a license.

Mr, Oilman. So our companies would not be able to engage in
this. If we are looking for allied help and cooperation, how do we
monitor this kind of sale? It is significant. We are talking about
hundreds of millions of deutschemarks.

Ms. Davis. We have made very clear. Congressman, that this
kind of trade between our allies and Iran is not something that we
support.

Mr. Oilman. What do we do about tightening up the trade?

Ms. Davis. Well, in some ways, one wished one could control all
of this as others. But as I tried to lay out in my opening remarks,
these issues go to the national policies and sovereignties of govern-
ments, so we seek by what

Mr. Oilman. I am referring to that communique out from the G-
7 Tokyo Economic Summit that stressed that our Nation and allies
would work to coordinate this.

Ms. Davis. Well, we are working to coordinate but, obviously, we
are not there yet.

Mr. Oilman. So it is sort of a failure of that policy?

Ms. Davis. Let's not say it is a failure. I think we are having
some success in convincing other governments that Iran is a dan-
ger and a security threat, and we need to be constrained in the
kinds of trade that we do.

Mr. Oilman. Has Germany shown any indication that they sup-
port our objectives in stopping dual-use exports to Iran?

Ms. Davis. They have in place an export control regime that has
been revamped and redesigned after their experiences with respect
to trade with Iraq, and I believe that they are controlling sensitive
trade to that countrv.

Mr. Oilman. Well, could you specifically make some inquiries
about this Siemens proposal and let our record contain your re-
sponse to the extent of your review?

Ms. Davis. I shall.

Mr. Oilman. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that it be made part of the record.

Chairman Hamilton. Without objection.

[The information follows:]

I am personally unfamiliar with the details of the alleged Siemens Corp. trans-
action with the Telecommunications Company of Iran. That said, responsible officers
of the Department have made inquiries of our embassy in Bonn, and I will provide
you that information upon receipt. We have requested our embassy to obtain a sta-
tus report on the alleged transaction, along with technical specifications to address
whether the telecommunications eouipment is sophisticatea enough that it would
have been controlled if Iran were a COCOM-proscribed destination.

Mr. Oilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses.

land mines moratorium

Chairman Hamilton. Do we support the South Pacific nuclear
free zone?

Ms. Davis. We do.

Chairman Hamilton. OK Just to conclude, we have had you
here a long time, and we appreciate your testimony.

I was reading the reports in the paper about land mines, and I
understand that worldwide production of these weapons is now up
to an annual rate of 10 million, and that they kill something like
200 people a day. They have become an awesomely destructive
weapon and they now terrorize civilians in many countries in the
world. I think the Senate last month passed an amendment to
place a moratorium on the export of land mines.

There are many countries, I understand, that produce land
mines. We produce them. I am not sure if we are a major producer.
The administration supports that moratorium; does it?

Ms. Davis. We do, and we have been working in the United Na-
tions General Assembly on a resolution which can brin^ the world
community in support of that moratorium. Indeed, this is an exam-
ple of where we are taking the lead. Senator Leahy has been very
concerned, has been working with us toward these goals and I
raised these in consultations I had in Russia and Moscow a couple
of weeks ago. I believe that Russia, too, will be prepared to support
us in this particular goal.

It is as tragic as you suggested, Mr. Chairman, and it is a goal
that all of us should seek to work together to accomplish.

Chairman Hamilton. Thank you very much.

We have a few questions we might submit for a written response.

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

We appreciate your testimony. The committee stands adjourned.

Ms. Davis. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN E. DAVIS, UNDER SECRETARY
FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATC

MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR
BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS AN ISSUE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE
TO THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. NON-PROLIFERATION IS THE ARMS
CONTROL PRIORITY OF THE POST-COLD WAR WORLD. THE PROLIFERATION
OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, BALLISTIC MISSILES AND ADVANCED
CONVENTIONAL ARMS, AS WELL AS THE TECHNOLOGIES WHICH ARE
NECESSARY FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTS THE MOST CRITICAL
SECURITY THREAT WE FACE. AS A RESULT, THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION IS PLACING A VERY HIGH PRIORITY ON
NON-PROLIFERATION .

PRESIDENT CLINTON SAID IN HIS ADDRESS TO THE UN GENERAL
ASSEMBLY THAT THE UNITED STATES INTENDED "TO WEAVE
NON-PROLIFERATION MORE DEEPLY INTO THE FABRIC OF ALL OF OUR
RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE WORLD'S NATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS."
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER LAST WEEK PLACED NON-PROLIFERATION AS ONE
OF HIS TOP PRIORITIES. INDEED, NON-PROLIFERATION IS INTEGRAL
TO SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING ALL HIS PRIORITIES.

LET ME BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S
NON-PROLIFERATION AGENDA, WHICH SPANS THE WHOLE RANGE OF
PROLIFERATION DANGERS, AND WHICH WE ARE PURSUING WITH A GLOBAL

(49)

DIPLOMATIC EFFORT. IN SETTING THE OVERALL FRAMEWORK FOR OUR
ACTIONS, WE HAVE SOUGHT TO ENSURE THAT OUR POLICIES RESPOND TO
THE POLITICAL, SECURITY, AND ECONOMIC CONCERNS WHICH MOTIVATE
THOSE SEEKING TO ACQUIRE OR TRADE IN DANGEROUS TECHNOLOGIES AND
WEAPONS .

NEWLY INDEPENDENT STATES

SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER RETURNED RECENTLY FROM A TRIP TO FOUR
OF THE NEWLY INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION —
RUSSIA, KAZAKHSTAN, UKRAINE, AND BELARUS. I ACCOMPANIED THE
SECRETARY EXCEPT FOR THE STOP IN BELARUS.

IN ALL FOUR CAPITALS, SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER PLEDGED
AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORM AND A TRANSITION TO A
MARKET ECONOMY. HE STRESSED THAT THESE COUNTRIES ARE NO LONGER
ADVERSARIES OF THE UNITED STATES BUT PARTNERS IN ASSURING
SECURITY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. HE FURTHER FOCUSED ON A
CRITICAL OBJECTIVE OF HIS MISSION — AVERTING THE SINGLE
GREATEST DANGER EVER TO THREATEN HUMANITY: THE NUCLEAR DANGER
AND THE THREAT FROM THE PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION.

THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA ARE CONSULTING VERY CLOSELY ON
THE TWIN GOALS OF NEGOTIATING AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE A

COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN AND ACHIEVING TH£ INDEFINITE EXTENSION
IN 1995 OF THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY (NPT) . PRESIDENT
YELTSIN EXPRESSED STRONG SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON'S
PROPOSAL TO STOP PRODUCTION OF FISSILE MATERIAL FOR NUCLEAR
WEAPONS PURPOSES. RUSSIA REAFFIRMED ITS COMMITMENT TO THE GOAL
OF ELIMINATING CHEMICAL WEAPONS, AND WE DICUSSED STEPS DESIGNED
TO GAIN CONFIDENCE IN RUSSIA'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE BIOLOGICAL
WEAPONS CONVENTION.

IN MOSCOW WE WORKED TOGETHER TO ENSURE A SMOOTH ENTRY INTO
FORCE OF THE BILATERAL MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME (MTCR)
AGREEMENT SIGNED BY VICE PRESIDENT GORE AND PRIME MINISTER
CHERNOMYRDIN IN SEPTEMBER, AS WELL AS CHANGES TO RUSSIA'S
TECHNOLOGICAL COOPERATION WITH INDIA. WE LOOK FORWARD TO
FUTURE RUSSIAN MEMBERSHIP IN THE MTCR.

IN KAZAKHSTAN, PRESIDENT NAZARBAYEV TOLD SECRETARY
CHRISTOPHER THAT KAZAKHSTAN WILL ACCEDE TO THE NPT AS A
NON-NUCLEAR WEAPONS STATE BY THE END OF THIS YEAR. SINCE
KAZAKHSTAN HAS ALREADY RATIFIED THE START I TREATY, THIS WILL
COMPLETE KAZAKHSTAN'S FULFILLMENT OF ITS COMMITMENTS UNDER THE
LISBON PROTOCOL. WE ALSO AGREED TO ESTABLISH A NUNN-LUGAR
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO KAZAKHSTAN TO FACILITATE THE ELIMINATION
OF THE SS-18 MISSILES THERE; THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN
PREPARED FOR HIGH-LEVEL SIGNATURE.

IN UKRAINE, THE SECRETARY ADDRESSED A BROAD RANGE OF
ECONOMIC AND SECURITY QUESTIONS. WE ARE PROVIDING $155 MILLION
IN ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, AND ARE PREPARED TO EXPAND
SUBSTANTIALLY OUR ASSISTANCE ONCE UKRAINE UNDERTAKES MARKET
REFORMS. ON THE NUCLEAR QUESTIONS, PRESIDENT KRAVCHUK
REAFFIRMED THE GOAL OF A NON-NUCLEAR UKRAINE AND HIS PERSONAL
COMMITMENT TO RATIFY THE START TREATY AND ACCEDE TO THE NPT AS
A NON-NUCLEAR-WEAPONS STATE. HE MADE CLEAR THAT THE LISBON
PROTOCOL COVERS ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN UKRAINE, INCLUDING THE
SS-24S.

AGREEMENTS WERE SIGNED ESTABLISHING A SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY CENTER, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE
EMPLOYMENT FOR WEAPONS SCIENTISTS; PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO
UKRAINE TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS; AND
PROVIDING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR A $175 MILLION NUNN-LUGAR
PROGRAM TO ASSIST IN DISMANTLING NUCLEAR FORCES IN UKRAINE.
NUNN-LUGAR ASSISTANCE FOR DISMANTLING NUCLEAR FORCES IN UKRAINE
WILL PROCEED ONCE THE UMBRELLA AGREEMENT ENTERS INTO FORCE AND
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENTS ARE CONCLUDED; THE FLOW OF
ASSISTANCE WILL THEN DEPEND ON THE SCOPE AND PACE OF
DISMANTLING IN UKRAINE. THERE IS CONSIDERABLE WORK AHEAD WITH
UKRAINE AS THERE REMAINS SOME OPPOSITION WITHIN THE UKRAINIAN
GOVERNMENT TO BEING A NON-NUCLEAR WEAPONS STATE.

IN BELARUS, THE SECRETARY PRAISED THE SHUSHKEVICH
GOVERNMENT, WHICH HAS ALREADY FULLY APPROVED THE LISBON
AGREEMENTS, JOINED THE NPT AS A NON-NUCLEAR WEAPONS STATE AND
HAS A NUNN-LUGAR PROGRAM IN PLACE.

MUCH REMAINS TO BE DONE, HOWEVER, PARTICULARLY ON THE THREE
THOUSAND FORMER SOVIET NUCLEAR WARHEADS THAT NEED TO BE
ELIMINATED FROM UKRAINE, KAZAKHSTAN, AND BELARUS. THE U.S. IS
WORKING ACTIVELY TO FACILITATE AGREEMENTS TO TRANSFER ALL THESE
NUCLEAR WARHEADS TO RUSSIA FOR DISMANTLING AND TO PROVIDE
COMPENSATION FOR THE HIGHLY-ENRICHED URANIUM IN THEM. THROUGH
THE NUNN-LUGAR PROGRAM, WE WILL ASSIST IN THE ELIMINATION OF
STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE ARMS IN ALL FOUR STATES. SUCH ASSISTANCE
IS ALREADY FLOWING TO RUSSIA AND BELARUS. WE WILL SEEK TO PUT
THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS IN PLACE WITH UKRAINE AND KAZAKHSTAN
IN THE COMING WEEKS. TO PREVENT THESE NATIONS FROM BECOMING A
SOURCE OF DANGEROUS ARMS AND TECHNOLOGIES, WE ARE WORKING WITH
THEM TO ESTABLISH EFFECTIVE EXPORT CONTROL SYSTEMS.

IN BOTH ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE AND DISMANTLEMENT ASSISTANCE,
THE U.S. IS NOT ALONE. OUR BILATERAL EFFORTS ARE PART OF A
MULTILATERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTANCE INVOLVING ALL THE G-7
PARTNERS. THE UK, FRANCE, GERMANY, AND JAPAN ALL HAVE PROGRAMS
FOR DISMANTLEMENT ASSISTANCE, THE EC HAS A PROGRAM FOR REACTOR
SAFETY, AND OUR G-7 PARTNERS HAVE PROMISED SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC
ASSISTANCE.

OUR ACTIVITIES IN THE NEWLY INDEPENDENT STATES DEMONSTRATE
THE MANY DIVERSE ELEMENTS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION'S OVERALL NON-PROLIFERATION POLICY. NOW LET ME
DESCRIBE OUR OVERALL POLICIES.

NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION

THE SPREAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IS CLEARLY THE GRAVEST
PROLIFERATION DANGER WE FACE. THIS ADMINISTRATION REMAINS
COMMITTED TO THE GOAL TO STOP THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS WORLDWIDE. THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY IS THE
FOUNDATION OF THIS EFFORT. OUR FOREMOST GOAL IS UNIVERSAL
MEMBERSHIP. WE ARE ACTIVELY URGING ALL NPT PARTIES TO JOIN US
TO EXTEND THE NPT INDEFINITELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY IN 1995. SO
FAR THIS GOAL HAS BEEN ENDORSED BY THE G-7, NATO, AND THE
CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE (CSCE) . WE
WELCOME JAPAN'S RECENT DECISION IN SUPPORT. THE SOUTH PACIFIC
FORUM INCLUDED AN ENDORSEMENT OF INDEFINITE EXTENSION IN ITS
MINISTERIAL COMMUNIQUE. SUPPORT FROM THE DEVELOPING WORLD,
WHICH MAKES UP THE LARGEST PART OF THE TREATY'S MEMBERSHIP, IS
ALSO BEGINNING TO EMERGE.

WE ARE SEEKING TO ENSURE THAT THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC
ENERGY AGENCY HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AS

WELL AS THE RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT ITS VITAL SAFEGUARDS
RESPONSIBILITIES. THE EXPERIENCE WITH IRAQ WAS AN IMPORTANT
LESSON. WE MUST BE PREPARED TO CONFRONT THE THREAT THAT
CERTAIN STATES ARE WILLING TO DISREGARD THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER
THE NPT. TO THAT END, WE ARE WORKING TO STRENGTHEN THE IAEA'S
SAFEGUARDS SYSTEM, INCLUDING THE USE OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING IN ORDER TO IMPROVE ITS CAPABILITIES TO
DETECT CLANDESTINE ACTIVITIES.

THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN TWO CRITICAL
INITIATIVES IN SUPPORT OF AN OVERALL NON-PROLIFERATION
STRATEGY: A COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY AND A
CUT-OFF IN FISSILE MATERIAL FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS PURPOSES.

PRESIDENT CLINTON IN JULY ANNOUNCED THE EXTENSION OF THE
U.S. MORATORIUM ON NUCLEAR TESTING — AND CALLED ON THE OTHER
NUCLEAR POWERS TO DO LIKEWISE. HE DID THIS IN ORDER TO PUT US
"IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE POSITION TO NEGOTIATE A
COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN, AND TO DISCOURAGE OTHER NATIONS FROM
DEVELOPING THEIR OWN NUCLEAR ARSENALS." THE PRESIDENT'S
ANNOUNCEMENT IMMEDIATELY RECEIVED BROAD SUPPORT FROM AROUND THE
WORLD, AND MOMENTUM TOWARDS A CTB TREATY HAS BEEN GROWING
STEADILY.

SINCE JULY, WE HAVE INITIATED BILATERAL CONSULTATIONS WITH
A LARGE NUMBER OF COUNTRIES ON CTBT ISSUES. SECRETARY

CHI^ISTOPHER HAS DISCUSSED CTBT WITH SEVERAL OF HIS
COUNTERPARTS. I HAVE MET WITH OFFICIALS OF EACH OF THE OTHER
FOUR NUCLEAR POWERS. THESE DISCUSSIONS HAVE REVEALED GENERAL
AGREEMENT AMONG THE FIVE ON MANY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. WE ARE
CURRENTLY FOCUSING MUCH OF OUR ATTENTION ON VERIFICATION
ISSUES.

ON THE MULTILATERAL FRONT, LAST SUMMER THE CONFERENCE ON
DISARMAMENT (CD) REACHED CONSENSUS ON BEGINNING FORMAL
NEGOTIATIONS IN GENEVA IN JANUARY 1994. SINCE THEN, WE HAVE MADE
GOOD PROGRESS ON DRAFTING A SPECIFIC CD NEGOTIATING MANDATE. IN
ADDITION, IN NEW YORK, AT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY — FOR THE FIRST
TIME — WE WILL ACHIEVE A CONSENSUS RESOLUTION SUPPORTING TEST
BAN NEGOTIATIONS.

WE WILL BE WORKING HARD TO PURSUE OUR NON-PROLIFERATION
OBJECTIVES AND MAINTAIN THE MOMENTUM TOWARD A CTBT, DESPITE THE
CHINESE TEST LAST MONTH. CHINA DECIDED TO PROCEED
NOTWITHSTANDING THE MORATORIUM BEING OBSERVED BY THE OTHER FOUR
POWERS. THE UNITED STATES, JOINED BY MANY OTHER COUNTRIES, URGED
THE CHINESE NOT TO TEST; WE ARE TRYING TO DISSUADE BEIJING FROM
CONDUCTING ANY FURTHER TESTS. IN A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT,
CHINA NOW SAYS PUBLICLY IT IS COMMITTED TO WORK TOWARD A CTBT BY
1996, AND WE INTEND TO PRESS AHEAD TO COMPLETE A CTBT AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE.

IN HIS SPEECH TO THE UNITED NATIONS, THE PRESIDENT PROPOSED
A CONVENTION PROHIBITING THE PRODUCTION OF HIGHLY-ENRICHED
URANIUM OR PLUTONIUM FOR NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE PURPOSES OR OUTSIDE
OF INTERNATIONAL SAFEGUARDS. THIS CONVENTION WILL BE AN
IMPORTANT ADDITION TO THE GLOBAL NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION
REGIME. ADHERENCE BY THE FIVE NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES TO THIS
CONVENTION AND TO THE CTB WOULD BE IMPORTANT STEPS IN MEETING
THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE NPT. AS IMPORTANT TO OUR
NON-PROLIFERATION GOALS WOULD BE A COMMITMENT BY NON-NUCLEAR
WEAPONS STATES, ESPECIALLY THOSE NOT PARTY TO THE NPT, NOT TO
TEST AND TO CAP THE AMOUNT OF FISSILE MATERIAL OUTSIDE OF
INTERNATIONAL SAFEGUARDS. WE ARE CONSULTING WITH OUR ALLIES
AND OTHERS ON THE MECHANISMS FOR SUCH A CONVENTION AND LOOK
FORWARD TO STARTING NEGOTIATIONS SHORTLY.

AS AN INTERIM STEP AND TO PROVIDE WORLD LEADERSHIP IN
ASSURING EXCESS FISSILE MATERIAL FROM DISMANTLED WEAPONS WILL
NOT BE RECYCLED INTO NEW NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THE UNITED STATES
WILL MAKE STOCKS OF FISSILE MATERIAL EXCESS TO ITS DEFENSE
REQUIREMENTS SUBJECT TO OUR VOLUNTARY SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT WITH
THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY. BEFORE THIS MEASURE IS
IMPLEMENTED, HOWEVER, WE WILL CAREFULLY STUDY WHAT APPROACHES
SHOULD BE USED TO ENSURE THAT SAFEGUARDS DO NOT REVEAL
CLASSIFIED NUCLEAR WEAPONS-RELATED INFORMATION. THE U.S. WILL

ALSO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ITS PARTNERS IN THE NUCLEAR
SUPPLIERS GROUP AND THE NPT EXPORTERS COMMITTEE TO ENSURE THAT
NUCLEAR RELATED EXPORTS ARE SUBJECT TO STRINGENT CONTROLS.

MEASURES TO STRENGTHEN THE GLOBAL NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION
REGIME ARE VITAL. BUT THEY MUST BE SUPPLEMENTED BY
COUNTRY-SPECIFIC APPROACHES TO DEAL WITH THE MOST DIFFICULT
CASES .

PRESIDENT CLINTON MADE CLEAR THAT NORTH KOREA CANNOT BE
ALLOWED TO DEVELOP A NUCLEAR BOMB. WE ARE THUS WORKING CLOSELY
WITH THE IAEA, JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA, AND OTHER INTERESTED
PARTIES TO BRING NORTH KOREA INTO COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF ITS
INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS. THIS IS NOT AN EASY PROCESS, BUT WE
REMAIN COMMITTED TO OUR GOAL OF HAVING NORTH KOREA COMPLY WITH
ITS SAFEGUARDS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE NPT, AND IMPLEMENT THE
NORTH-SOUTH DENUCLEARIZATION DECLARATION. RECENT NORTH KOREAN
BEHAVIOR HAS BEEN DISAPPOINTING, ESPECIALLY ITS REJECTION OF
THE IAEA'S INSPECTION REQUESTS. THE U.S. HAS MADE CLEAR ITS
READINESS TO ADDRESS LEGITIMATE NORTH KOREAN CONCERNS. BUT
UNLESS THE DPRK TAKES THE NECESSARY STEPS TO PERSUADE THE WORLD
COMMUNITY THAT IT IS NOT PURSUING A NUCLEAR WEAPONS OPTION, WE
WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TERMINATE THE BILATERAL U.S. -DPRK
DIALOGUE AND PURSUE FURTHER STEPS IN THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL.

WITH IRAQ, WE ARE CONTINUING OUR COOPERATION WITH THE UN
SPECIAL COMMISSION TO PREVENT A RECONSTITUTION OF IRAQ'S
ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD) . SOME
PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE RECENTLY; FOR EXAMPLE, IRAQ DISCLOSED
SOME DATA ON ITS PRODUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE. HOWEVER, IRAQ'S
OBSTRUCTIONIST BEHAVIOR UNDERSCORES IT'S EXTREME RELUCTANCE TO
COMPLY FULLY WITH THE UN SECURITY" COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS.
SPECIFICALLY, LONG-TERM MONITORING AND VERIFICATION MUST BE
IMPLEMENTED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT
OF COMPLIANCE CAN BE MADE. WE WILL NOT ACCEPT IRAQ'S POSITION
THAT IT WILL ACCEDE TO LONG-TERM MONITORING ONLY AFTER THE
SECURITY COUNCIL AGREES TO RECOMMEND LIFTING SANCTIONS.

THE ADMINISTRATION IS ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IRAN'S
BEHAVIOR. IRAN'S ACTIONS LEAVE LITTLE DOUBT THAT TEHRAN IS
INTENT UPON DEVELOPING A NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITY; THEY ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH ANY RATIONAL CIVIL NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAM.
FORTUNATELY, THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM IS STILL IN ITS
INFANCY AND IS DEPENDENT UPON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE. WE ARE
WORKING VIGOROUSLY TO CAUTION SUPPLIERS AGAINST COMMERCE WITH
IRAN IN SENSITIVE NUCLEAR OR DUAL-USE TECHNOLOGIES. TO THAT
END, THE SECRETARY HAS BEEN PERSONALLY ENGAGED IN A DIPLOMATIC
EFFORT WITH OUR ALLIES IN EUROPE AND ASIA TO DEVELOP AN
INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS TO DENY IRAN THE ESSENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES
AND COMPONENTS OF A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM.

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROLIFERATION

WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS, THROUGH MULTILATERAL FORA LIKE THE
AUSTRALIA GROUP, IN TIGHTENING EXPORT CONTROLS TO PREVENT THE
SPREAD OF THE MATERIALS NECESSARY TO PRODUCE CHEMICAL AND
BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. WE ARE WORKING HARD TO PROMOTE THE WIDEST
POSSIBLE ADHERENCE TO THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND BIOLOGICAL
WEAPONS CONVENTIONS. THE U.S. IS NOW ENGAGED IN PREPARATORY
WORK AT THE HAGUE TO FACILITATE AN EARLY ENTRY INTO FORCE OF
THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC) IN JANUARY 1995. AS THE
PRESIDENT SAID AT THE UN, WE CALL UPON ALL NATIONS, INCLUDING
OUR OWN, TO RATIFY THE CWC QUICKLY. TO STRENGTHEN THE
BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (BWC), WE ARE PARTING COMPANY
WITH THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION AND PROMOTING NEW MEASURES
DESIGNED TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY OF ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES
THAT COULD HAVE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS APPLICATIONS, THEREBY
INCREASING CONFIDENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONVENTION.

MISSILE PROLIFERATION

THE USE OF SCUD MISSILES BY IRAQ DURING THE GULF WAR

IMPRESSED ON THE WORLD THE DANGERS OF BALLISTIC MISSILE

PROLIFERATION. IMAGINE THE CONSEQUENCES IF THE SCUDS HAD

CARRIED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. THE MULTILATERAL MISSILE
TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME (MTCR) WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE
PRIMARY TOOL OF UNITED STATES MISSILE NON-PROLIFERATION
POLICY. IT WORKS AND HAS ENJOYED SEVERAL SUCCESSES SINCE ITS
CREATION IN 1987. WE NOW WANT TO MOVE THE REGIME INTO THE
FUTURE, BEYOND A GROUP OF RESPONSIBLE SUPPLIERS THAT SEEKS TO
ENSURE THAT ITS OWN INDUSTRIES DO NOT INADVERTENTLY CONTRIBUTE
TO MISSILE PROLIFERATION, TO A GROUP THAT WORKS ACTIVELY
TOGETHER TO DEAL WITH THE MISSILE PROLIFERATION PROBLEM
WORLDWIDE. IN OTHER WORDS, WE WANT TO PROMOTE THE MTCR
GUIDELINES AS A GLOBAL MISSILE NON-PROLIFERATION NORM, ENGAGING
OUR PARTNERS IN A COOPERATIVE EFFORT TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE
BEHAVIOR BY NON-MEMBER STATES, WHETHER SUPPLIERS OR RECIPIENTS
OF MISSILE TECHNOLOGY.

THE ADMINISTRATION HAS DEMONSTRATED A WILLINGNESS TO APPLY
BOTH CARROTS AND STICKS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST MISSILE
PROLIFERATION. BESIDE OUR SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION WITH RUSSIA,
WE HAVE GAINED SOUTH AFRICA'S AGREEMENT TO ABANDON A SPACE
LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM. WE ARE PURSUING A POLICY OF PREVENTIVE
DIPLOMACY IN SOUTH ASIA THAT SEEKS TO PERSUADE INDIA AND
PAKISTAN TO FORGO A BALLISTIC MISSILE ARMS RACE THAT —
COMBINED WITH THE REGION'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES —
WOULD ONLY DESTABILIZE AN ALREADY FRAGILE SECURITY SITUATION
THERE. AND OUR DECISION TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS AGAINST CHINA AND

PAKISTAN. FOR THE TRANSFER OF M-11 RELATED TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATES THAT WE'RE PREPARED TO PURSUE OUR

NON-PROLIFERATION GOALS VIGOROUSLY EVEN WHEN SUCH EFFORTS MAY
RISK FRICTIONS IN CRITICAL BILATERAL RELATIONSHIPS.

STRATEGIC TRADE

WE HAVE INITIATED A THOROUGH REVIEW, ALONG WITH OUR COCOM
PARTNERS, ON HOW TO REORIENT EXPORT CONTROLS IN THE POST-COLD
WAR WORLD. THIS INITIATIVE FLOWS FROM THE PRESIDENT'S
DISCUSSIONS IN VANCOUVER AND TOKYO ON OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH
RUSSIA IN COMBATTING PROLIFERATION. THERE IS GENERAL AGREEMENT
THAT COCOM CONTROLS ON TRADE WITH RUSSIA AND OTHER STATES OF
THE FORMER WARSAW PACT SHOULD BE PHASED OUT AND A PARTNERSHIP
OFFERED TO RUSSIA AND OTHER NEWLY INDEPENDENT STATES IN A NEW
REGIME. THE PARTNERSHIP WILL BE BASED ON CLEARLY DEFINED
CRITERIA CONCERNING ADHERENCE TO EXPORT CONTROLS AND
NON-PROLIFERATION NORMS. WE AND OUR ALLIES ARE DISCUSSING NOW
HOW BEST TO STRUCTURE A NEW REGIME IN PARTNERSHIP WITH RUSSIA
AND THE OTHER NEWLY INDEPENDENT STATES TO ENHANCE TRANSPARENCY
AND COORDINATION OF CONTROLS ON EXPORTS OF ARMS AND SENSITIVE
DUAL-USE AND MILITARY TECHNOLOGIES. THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES:

— A MULTILATERAL APPROACH, FOR WE CANNOT BE FULLY SUCCESSFUL
WITHOUT SUPPORT FROM OTHER SUPPLIERS OF SENSITIVE GOODS,

NOR CAN WE BE FAIR TO AMERICAN EXPORTERS IF OTHERS SEEK TO
UNDERCUT OUR RESTRAINT. NEVERTHELESS, WE WILL CONTINUE TO
ACT UNILATERALLY WHERE NECESSARY. OUR APPROACH SEEKS TO
INCLUDE RUSSIA, OTHER NEWLY INDEPENDENT STATES, AND CHINA,
IN A REGIME COVERING ALL WHO CARRY OUT SUCH TRADE.

— A FOCUS ON NEW DANGERS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, SOUTH ASIA, AND
ELSEWHERE WHERE THE DANGERS ARE GREATEST, PARTICULARLY IN
IRAN, IRAQ, LIBYA, AND NORTH KOREA.

— A LIBERALIZED ENVIRONMENT IN SECTORS WHERE APPROPRIATE —
SUCH AS COMPUTERS. WE HAVE TAKEN STEPS ALREADY IN THIS
RESPECT, SUCH AS THE SEPTEMBER 2 9 ANNOUNCEMENT THAT
PROPOSED RAISING COMPUTER AND SUPERCOMPUTER LIMITS FOR MOST
DESTINATIONS.

— IMPROVEMENTS IN THE EXPORT REGIMES OF THE NEWLY INDEPENDENT
STATES, THROUGH TRAINING AND OTHER ACTIVITIES.

— COMMITMENTS TO AGREED PROCEDURES AND POLICIES FOR BOTH
DUAL-USE ITEMS AND ARMS EXPORTS.

THE RESPONSE FROM OUR ALLIES TO THE U.S. PROPOSAL HAS BEEN
GENERALLY FAVORABLE, BUT THERE IS MUCH WORK AND NEGOTIATION TO
BE DONE BEFORE THE PROCESS IS COMPLETE AND A SUCCESSOR TO COCOM

AGREED UPON. THIS PROCESS WILL MOVE FORWARD IN THE WEEKS AHEAD
AND INTO THE FIRST PART OF 1994. WE WILL CONTINUE TO KEEP
CONGRESS INFORMED AS TO THE STATUS OF THIS EFFORT.

NON-PROLIFERATION: A NEW WAY OF THINKING

IN THE NEW INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ENVIRONMENT, ACHIEVING
OUR NON-PROLIFERATION OBJECTIVES REQUIRES A NEW WAY OF THINKING
ABOUT SECURITY AND THE TOOLS FOR ACCOMPLISHING OUR GOALS. WE
APPRECIATE THE COMPLEX NATURE OF THE TASK FOR PROMOTING
NON-PROLIFERATION: IT IS NOT SIMPLY STOPPING THE FLOW OF
TECHNOLOGIES, WEAPONS OR HARDWARE. RATHER, IT DEALS WITH THE
TOUGH AND INTER-RELATED ISSUES OF SECURITY, ECONOMICS, JOBS AND
TRADE. IT ALSO CUTS TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PREROGATIVE OF STATES:
THEIR SOVEREIGNTY.

NON-PROLIFERATION REQUIRES GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT. WE INHERIT
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND AGREEMENTS, AND WE WILL CONTINUE
TO RELY UPON THEM. HOWEVER, SUCCESS WILL REQUIRE NOT ONLY A
GLOBAL APPROACH, BUT ALSO REGIONAL STRATEGIES TAILORED TO THE
SPECIFIC SECURITY CONCERNS OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES. FOR
EXAMPLE, TO FACILITATE ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS FROM
UKRAINE, KAZAKHSTAN AND BELARUS WE ARE PREPARED TO OFFER THEM
SECURITY ASSURANCES ONCE THEY BECOME NON-NUCLEAR WEAPONS STATE
PARTIES TO THE NPT . SIMILARLY, THE RECENT HISTORIC

BREAKTHROUGHS IN THE PEACE PROCESS HAVE CREATED NEW
POSSIBILITIES FOR ARMS CONTROL IN THE MIDDLE EAST. WE ARE
USING THE ARMS CONTROLS AND REGIONAL SECURITY WORKING GROUP TO
PROMOTE CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURES THAT WILL LAY THE GROUND
WORK FOR MORE AMBITIOUS STEPS, ONCE A COMPREHENSIVE SETTLEMENT
HAS BEEN ACHIEVED.

DIPLOMACY, BACKED UP BY AMERICAN POWER, INFLUENCE, PRESTIGE
AND MILITARY CAPABILITIES, REPRESENTS OUR PRIMARY TOOL IN
ATTAINING OUR NON-PROLIFERATION GOALS. AT THE SAME TIME, WE
WILL ENSURE THAT U.S. AND ALLIED FORCES ARE PREPARED TO COPE
WITH POSSIBLE THREATS IF OUR NON-PROLIFERATION EFFORTS FAIL.

SUCCESS WILL REQUIRE AMERICAN LEADERSHIP. THE U.S. STANDS
UNIQUELY POISED IN ITS RELATIONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES TO
PROMOTE NON-PROLIFERATION. WE SEEK TO MAKE COOPERATION ON
NON-PROLIFERATION GOALS AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR SECURITY
ALLIANCES AS THEY TRANSFORM TO MEET THE NEW WORLD'S
CHALLENGES. NON-PROLIFERATION IS CENTRAL TO BUILDING OUR NEW
STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE NIS. WE HAVE LINKED OUR
COOPERATION IN SPACE TO ADHERENCE TO THE MTCR BY RUSSIA, CHINA
AND INDIA. NON-PROLIFERATION IS IN THE SECURITY INTERESTS OF
NATIONS ALL AROUND THE WORLD,

IN SUPPORT OF NON-PROLIFERATION GOALS, WE ARE PREPARED TO
PROVIDE MODEST ASSISTANCE TO OTHER COUNTRIES. IN PARTICULAR,
ASSISTANCE IN EXPORT CONTROL AND ARMS CONTROL VERIFICATION
TECHNIQUES CAN GREATLY REDUCE THREATS TO U.S. SECURITY
INTERESTS THROUGH SMUGGLING OR THROUGH REGIONAL

MISCALCULATIONS. THESE ASSISTANCE EFFORTS ARE A SMALL PRICE
TO PAY TO PREVENT THE LARGER DANGERS, AND FAR LESS EXPENSIVE
THAN EXPANDING MILITARY FORCES OR DEFENSIVE MILITARY SYSTEMS.
WHILE AMERICA MUST LEAD, WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT WE CANNOT
SHOULDER ALL NON-PROLIFERATION RESPONSIBILITIES ALONE. WE WILL
REQUIRE THE HELP OF OTHERS TO SUCCEED, FIRST IN CONTROLLING
TRADE IN DANGEROUS ARMS AND TECHNOLOGIES WHICH IS AVAILABLE
AROUND THE WORLD. OUR EXISTING ALLIANCES ARE ALSO IMPORTANT TO
CREATING THE REGIONAL STABILITY NECESSARY TO REDUCE MOTIVATIONS
FOR PROLIFERATION. WE WILL ALSO NEED TO FORGE NEW COALITIONS
IN MEETING THESE CHALLENGES.

IN PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT CASES WE MAY FACE RELUCTANCE BOTH
AT HOME AND ABROAD TO FACE UP TO THE THREAT POSED BY
PROLIFERANT COUNTRIES. WE ACCEPT THIS CHALLENGE, GIVEN THE
POTENTIAL THREATS TO AMERICAN SECURITY.

FINALLY MR. CHAIRMAN, LET ME CLOSE ON THE NEED FOR OUR
WORKING TOGETHER. WE NEED THE HELP OF CONGRESS, SO THAT WHEN

THE ADMINISTRATION SEEKS THESE BROAD NON-PROLIFERATION GOALS,
WE WILL HAVE YOUR SUPPORT. I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT ONE OF THE
REASONS THAT U.S. NON-PROLIFERATION GOALS HAVE ENJOYED STRONG
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IS BECAUSE OF A CLOSE WORKING RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES. LET ME ASK FOR
YOUR HELP, SO THAT THOSE WHO UNDERTAKE DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES
WILL KNOW THAT THE U.S. AS A WHOLE WILL RESPOND. I LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING TOGETHER, FOR NON-PROLIFERATION, WHICH I
KNOW ENJOYS SUPPORT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.

THANK YOU.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NORMAN A. WULF ACTING ASSISTANT
FOR NONPROLIFERATION AND REGIONAL ARMS CONTROL US
ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY ' ' '

INTRODUCTION

LAST MONTH, WHEN PRESIDENT CLINTON ANNOUNCED THE NOMINATION
OF JOHN HOLUM TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. ARMS CONTROL AND
DISARMAMENT AGENCY (ACDA) , HE STATED THAT, "MY ADMINISTRATION
HAS PLACED THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE ON ARMS CONTROL AND COMBATTING
THE PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. ... WE MUST
PURSUE A BOLD STRATEGY TO ADDRESS THE GROWING DANGERS OF
PROLIFERATION, INCLUDING NEGOTIATING A COMPREHENSIVE BAN ON
TESTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. IN THE WRONG HANDS, WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION AND MISSILES THAT DELIVER THEM THREATEN THE SECURITY
OF US ALL." HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT, "A REVITALIZED ARMS CONTROL
AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY WILL PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN ACHIEVING
ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS AND FIGHTING WEAPONS PROLIFERATION."

IN THE WAKE OF THE END OF THE COLD WAR, THE PROLIFERATION
OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND THEIR MISSILE DELIVERY
SYSTEMS IS RECEIVING THE PRIORITY ATTENTION THAT WAS ONCE
RESERVED FOR THE SUPERPOWERS' NUCLEAR COMPETITION. WE ARE FACED
DAILY WITH NEW PROBLEMS -- FOR EXAMPLE THOSE RAISED BY NORTH
KOREA IN MEETING ITS NPT OBLIGATIONS AND BY INTERNATIONAL
EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT IRAQ DOES NOT AGAIN PURSUE A NUCLEAR
WEAPON PROGRAM. THE GLOBAL NONPROLIFERATION ENVIRONMENT HAS
CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY, IN BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE WAYS AS
REFLECTED BY THE HIGH PRIORITY PLACED ON NONPROLIFERATION BY
PRESIDENT CLINTON IN HIS SPEECH TO THE UNITED NATIONS.

ACDA HAS PLAYED AND WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE
IN SUPPORTING THE PRESIDENT'S ARMS CONTROL AND NONPROLIFERATION
AGENDA. ACDA HAS LONG HAD A BUREAU DEVOTED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY
TO NONPROLIFERATION ISSUES. IN RECOGNITION OF THE IMPORTANCE
THAT MUST BE ATTACHED TO REGIONAL SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM OF
PROLIFERATION, AN IMPORTANCE HEIGHTENED BY THE END OF THE COLD
WAR, ACDA HAS RECENTLY DECIDED TO ORGANIZE ALMOST ALL OF ITS
NONPROLIFERATION AND REGIONAL ARMS CONTROL ACTIVITIES INTO A
SINGLE BUREAU. WE WILL WORK VIGOROUSLY TO SUPPORT FULL
IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS THAT PROMOTE OUR
NONPROLIFERATION OBJECTIVES — FOR EXAMPLE EXISTING AGREEMENTS
SUCH AS THE NPT AND THE TREATY OF TLATELOLCO — AND NEW
AGREEMENTS PROPOSED BY THE PRESIDENT SUCH AS A COMPREHENSIVE
TEST BAN AND AN INTERNATIONALLY AND EFFECTIVELY VERIFIED
AGREEMENT BANNING THE PRODUCTION OF FISSIONABLE MATERIALS FOR
NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR OTHER NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE DEVICES -- A
SO-CALLED CUT-OFF AGREEMENT.

THE ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTS A STRONG SYSTEM OF EXPORT
CONTROLS DESIGNED TO STEM THE FLOW OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND
TECHNOLOGY THAT COULD SUPPORT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD)
OR MISSILE PROGRAMS. WE HAVE DEVOTED CONSIDERABLE EFFORT TO
STRENGTHENING THE NUCLEAR SUPPLIERS GROUP, THE ZANGGER
COMMITTEE, THE MTCR, AND THE AUSTRALIA GROUP. WE WILL CONTINUE
TO DO SO.

THIS ADMINISTRATION ALSO WILL SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ENSURE
THAT REGIONAL NONPROLIFERATION APPROACHES RECEIVE ADEQUATE
ATTENTION AND THAT THE FULL BENEFITS OF THE EXPERIENCE THAT THE
U.S. HAS OBTAINED IN THE AREA OF ARMS CONTROL AND VERIFICATION
IS MADE AVAILABLE TO STATES THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM IT. IN
SOUTH ASIA, THE MIDDLE EAST, AND THE KOREAN PENINSULA, WE ARE
PROMOTING EFFECTIVE ARRANGEMENTS THAT COULD CAP, ROLL BACK, AND
FINALLY ELIMINATE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND THEIR MISSILE
DELIVERY SYSTEMS. I BELIEVE THAT THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE HAVE
WITHIN ACDA WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN PURSUING
THESE OBJECTIVES.

I WOULD LIKE TO TURN NOW TO ONE IMPORTANT NONPROLIFERATION
TOPIC WHERE ACDA HAS PLAYED THE LEAD ROLE WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH -- NAMELY THE EXTENSION OF THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION
TREATY (NPT) . THE NPT IS THE CORNERSTONE OF THE NUCLEAR
NONPROLIFERATION REGIME. IN 1995, THE PARTIES TO THAT TREATY
WILL HOLD A CONFERENCE IN NEW YORK TO DECIDE WHETHER THE NPT
SHOULD CONTINUE IN FORCE INDEFINITELY, OR BE EXTENDED FOR AK
ADDITIONAL FIXED PERIOD OR PERIODS. BY THE TERMS OF THE TREATY,
THIS DECISION MAY BE TAKEN BY A MAJORITY OF ITS PARTIES.

THE 1995 NPT CONFERENCE IS A UNIQUE AND UNPRECEDENTED
EVENT. NO OTHER MULTILATERAL ARMS CONTROL TREATY CONTAINS A
PROVISION TO LEAVE ITS FURTHER DURATION TO A DECISION SOME TIME
IN THE FUTURE. NEW RULES MUST BE FORGED TO GOVERN THE
CONFERENCE AND THE DECISION-MAKING ON EXTENSION.

THE 1995 CONFERENCE ALSO WILL REVIEW THE NPT, AS THE
PARTIES HAVE DONE EVERY FIVE YEARS SINCE THE TREATY FIRST
ENTERED INTO FORCE IN 1970. THIS WILL BE THE FIRST SUCH REVIEW,
HOWEVER, SINCE IRAQ'S VIOLATIONS OF ITS NPT COMMITMENTS WERE
REVEALED AND THE FIRST CONFERENCE TO TAKE PLACE IN THE WAKE OF
THE EFFORT BY NORTH KOREA TO WITHDRAW FROM THE TREATY. THE
CONFERENCE ALSO MAY SEEK TO ADDRESS THE UNPRECEDENTED
PROLIFERATION IMPLICATIONS OF THE DISSOLUTION OF THE FORMER
SOVIET UNION.

U.S. OBJECTIVES FOR THE 1995 NPT CONFEREUCE

THE PRESIDENT RECENTLY HAS AFFIRMED THAT THE UNITED STATES
WILL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO SECURE THE INDEFINITE EXTENSION OF THE
NPT IN 1995. THIS IS THE OUTCOME THE U.S. SOUGHT IN THE
NEGOTIATIONS ON THE NPT IN 19 68, AND THAT POSITION HAS NEVER
CHANGED. THE PRESIDENT ALSO HAS AFFIRMED THAT THE UNITED STATES
WILL SEEK TO ENSURE THAT THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
(IAEA) HAS THE RESOURCES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT ITS SAFEGUARDS
RESPONSIBILITIES AND WILL WORK TO STRENGTHEN THE IAEA'S ABILITY
TO DETECT CLANDESTINE NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES. THESE EFFORTS, IN
TURN, WILL STRENGTHEN IMPLEMENTATION OF, AND SHOULD CONTRIBUTE
TO ENHANCED COMPLIANCE WITH, THE NPT WHICH RELIES ON THE IAEA'S
SAFEGUARDS TO VERIFY THE PARTIES' COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
UNDERTAKINGS.

THE INDEFINITE EXTENSION OF THE NPT IS, WE BELIEVE, THE
BEST WAY TO ENSURE THAT THE BENEFITS THE NPT PROVIDES —

ENHANCING REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND STABILITY,
SUPPORTING ONGOING EFFORTS IN THE ARMS CONTROL ARENA, AND
PROMOTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY FOR PEACEFUL
PURPOSES -- WILL REMAIN AVAILABLE. INDEFINITE EXTENSION OF THE
NPT ALSO WILL CONTRIBUTE TO A SECURITY ENVIRONMENT THAT WILL
DEPRIVE OTHER STATES OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY NEED TO DEVELOP
NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO COPE WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE. FINALLY,
INDEFINITE EXTENSION MEANS THAT NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION IS AN
ENDURING VALUE, NOT SUBJECT TO SOME FINITE LIMIT.

THE EXTENSION DECISION — PROSPECTS

THE PROSPECTS FOR EXTENDING THE NPT ARE EXCELLENT. THERE
IS VIRTUAL UNANIMITY AMONG THE PARTIES THAT THE TREATY SHOULD BE
EXTENDED. WHAT IS AT ISSUE, HOWEVER, IS THE LENGTH OF THE
EXTENSION PERIOD THAT THE PARTIES WILL SUPPORT. THE NPT
PROVIDES FOR THREE CHOICES-- INDEFINITE EXTENSION; EXTENSION FOR
AN ADDITIONAL FIXED PERIOD; OR EXTENSION FOR ADDITIONAL FIXED
PERIODS. OF THESE THREE CHOICES, INDEFINITE EXTENSION IS
CLEARLY THE BEST, AND THIS IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THE U.S. IT IS
THE ONLY ONE OF THE CHOICES THAT CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY
PROVIDES FOR AN ENDURING NONPROLIFERATION TREATY THAT CAN SERVE
AS THE FOUNDATION OF AN EFFECTIVE GLOBAL NONPROLIFERATION REGIME.

INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT FOR INDEFINITE EXTENSION IS GROWING.
IN ADDITION TO STATEMENTS BY THE G-7 COUNTRIES, THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITY, AND NATO, THE 5 8 MEMBERS OF THE CONFERENCE ON
SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE (CSCE) IN 1992, AND THE SOUTH

PACIFIC FORUM IN AUGUST 1993 HAVE ENDORSED INDEFINITE NPT
EXTENSION IN MINISTERIAL LEVEL COMMUNIQUES. SUPPORT AMONG THE
NONALIGNED COUNTRIES, WHICH MAKE UP THE BULK OF THE TREATY'S
MEMBERSHIP IS EMERGING SLOWLY, BUT IT IS EMERGING. A NUMBER OF
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES HAVE MADE CLEAR THAT THEY DO NOT RULE OUT
INDEFINITE EXTENSION, BUT ARE WATCHING CLOSELY THE ACTIONS OF
THE U.S. AND OTHER NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES IN OTHER AREAS BEFORE
COMMITTING THEMSELVES. THE CONTINUATION OF THE NUCLEAR TESTING
MORATORIUM AND SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS ON A COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR
TEST BAN TREATY BY 19 9 5 ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO THE VAST MAJORITY
OF THESE STATES.

NONPROLIFERATION ACHIEVEMENTS

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE
NONPROLIFERATION AREA THAT WILL STRENGTHEN THE HAND OF THOSE WHO
SUPPORT INDEFINITE EXTENSION.

FIRST, THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE NPT CONTINUES TO GROW AS MORE
AND MORE STATES RECOGNIZE THE BENEFITS OF BEING IN, RATHER THAN
OUTSIDE OF, THE REGIME. SOUTH AFRICA'S DECISION TO ROLL BACK
ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NPT IS ONE OF THE MORE
DRAMATIC EXAMPLES. WITH THE ACCESSIONS OF GUYANA AND MAURITANIA
THIS MONTH, THERE ARE NOW 161 STATES PARTY TO THE NPT, AND
SUPPORT FOR THE NORM OF NONPROLIFERATION ALSO CONTINUES TO GROW.

ONCE CONSIDERED TO BE PROLIFERATION THREATS THEMSELVES,
ARGENTINA AND BRAZIL HAVE TAKEN DRAMATIC STEPS TO REDUCE MUTUAL

SUSPICION ABOUT THEIR NUCLEAR PROGRAMS AND ARE MOVING TOWARD
FULL ADHERENCE TO THE TREATY OF TLATELOLCO (THE LATIN AMERICAN
NUCLEAR WEAPON FREE ZONE TREATY) AND THE APPLICATION OF
FULL-SCOPE IAEA SAFEGUARDS TO ALL OF THEIR NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES.
WE REMAIN HOPEFUL THAT THEY WILL SERIOUSLY CONSIDER ACCEDING TO
THE NPT ONCE THEY HAVE COMPLETED ACTION ON TLATELOLCO.

REVELATIONS ABOUT IRAQ'S CLANDESTINE NUCLEAR WEAPONS
PROGRAM GALVANIZED THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY INTO ACTION TO
STRENGTHEN THE IAEA SAFEGUARDS SYSTEM. INTEREST IN SPECIAL
INSPECTIONS, UNTIL RECENTLY AN UNEXPLOITED PROVISION IN STANDARD
NPT SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENTS, WAS REVIVED AS STATES SEARCHED FOR
WAYS TO HEAD OFF FUTURE VIOLATIONS. THE NUCLEAR SUPPLIER
COUNTRIES, AT U.S. INITIATIVE, TOOK STEPS TO TIGHTEN CONTROLS ON
THE EXPORT OF NUCLEAR DUAL-USE EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY WHEN IT
BECAME APPARENT THAT IRAQ'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM OWED A GREAT DEAL TO
LEGALLY AND ILLEGALLY PROCURED DUAL-USE COMMODITIES.

FINALLY, BUT TO MANY NPT PARTIES, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THERE
IS THE END OF THE COLD WAR, AND WITH ITS DEMISE A DRAMATIC SURGE
OF ACTIVITY IN NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL BETWEEN THE U.S. AND
RUSSIA. IN ADDITION TO THE INF AGREEMENT AND START I AND II,
THE U.S. HAS DECIDED TO NEGOTIATE A COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST
BAN TREATY (CTBT), VIEWED BY MANY NON-NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES AS
THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL MEASURE THAT
COULD BE PURSUED BY THE NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES TO MEET THEIR ARMS
CONTROL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE NPT.

LAST JULY, AFTER A CAREFUL REVIEW, PRESIDENT CLINTON
DECIDED TO EXTEND THE U.S. MORATORIUM ON NUCLEAR TESTING AT
LEAST THROUGH SEPTEMBER OF 1994, AND HE URGED THE OTHER NUCLEAR
POWERS TO DO THE SAME. HE DECIDED THAT THE BENEFITS OF FURTHER
TESTS WOULD BE OUTWEIGHED BY THE COSTS, SPECIFICALLY
UNDERCUTTING OUR OWN NONPROLIFERATION GOALS. ALTHOUGH WE THINK
THAT NPT EXTENSION SHOULD NOT BE LINKED TO ANY OTHER
CONSIDERATION, WE RECOGNIZE THAT MANY OTHER NPT PARTIES BELIEVE
THAT NEGOTIATING A NUCLEAR TEST BAN SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT FOR
A LONG-TERM EXTENSION OF THE TREATY.

IN SPITE OF BEST INTENTIONS AND EFFORTS, NEGOTIATION OF A
NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY MAY PROVE TIME-CONSUMING AND MAY NOT BE
CONCLUDED BY EARLY 1995. HENCE, WE BELIEVE A GLOBAL MORATORIUM
ON TESTING IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR OBTAINING MAJORITY SUPPORT FOR
LONG-TERM EXTENSION OF THE NPT. ACCORDINGLY THE UNITED STATES
IS URGING ALL NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES TO REFRAIN FROM NUCLEAR
TESTING. THIS WOULD PUT US IN THE BEST POSITION TO MAINTAIN THE
NPT AND STRENGTHEN THE GLOBAL NONPROLIFERATION REGIME.

THE ADMINISTRATION'S RECENT PROPOSAL TO NEGOTIATE AN
INTERNATIONALLY AND EFFECTIVELY VERIFIABLE MULTILATERAL
CONVENTION BANNING THE PRODUCTION OF FISSIONABLE MATERIALS FOR
NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR OTHER NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE DEVICES IS ANOTHER
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT WHICH RESPONDS TO A LONG-HELD DESIRE OF
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FOR SUCH AN AGREEMENT.

CHALLENGES TO INDEFINITE EXTENSION

OF COURSE, THERE ARE ALSO A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT COULD
COMPLICATE ACHIEVEMENT OF INDEFINITE, OR EVEN LONG-TERM
EXTENSION OF THE NPT . THESE INCLUDE THE RELUCTANCE OF SOME
PARTIES TO COMMIT TO INDEFINITE EXTENSION ON THE GROUNDS THAT
THIS WOULD REMOVE ALL PRESSURE ON THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS STATES FOR
GREATER PROGRESS TOWARD NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND AN INTEREST ON
THE PART OF SOME COUNTRIES TO SEEK A LIMITED EXTENSION
(10-20 YEARS) AND TO CONDITION FUTURE EXTENSIONS ON CONCLUSION
OF A CTBT OR OTHER ARMS CONTROL MEASURE.

OTHER PARTIES MAY SEEK LEGALLY-BINDING SECURITY ASSURANCES,
BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, FROM THE NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES AND
THERE WILL BE EFFORTS BY SOME STATES AND NONGOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS TO PROMOTE SUPPORT FOR A NONDISCRIMINATORY
REPLACEMENT TO THE NPT, I.E., WHEREIN ALL STATES ARE NON-NUCLEAR
WEAPON STATES.

THE QUALITY OF ADHERENCE TO THE NPT IS ALSO CRITICAL.
WHILE UNIVERSAL ADHERENCE IS DESIRABLE, STRICT COMPLIANCE BY
PARTIES TO THE TERMS OF THE TREATY IS ESSENTIAL. THERE MAY BE
CONTINUING CONCERNS ABOUT TREATY VIOLATIONS BY NPT PARTIES SUCH
AS IRAQ WHICH COULD CAUSE SOME PARTIES TO QUESTION THE NPT'S
UTILITY OR GENERATE INTEREST IN AMENDMENTS TO STRENGTHEN ITS
VERIFICATION PROVISIONS. THE DPRK'S THREATENED WITHDRAWAL FROM
THE TREATY HAS ALSO BEEN A SOURCE OF GRAVE CONCERN BOTH TO THE
U.S. AND TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. WE SEEK A NONNUCLEAR

PENINSULA AND TO THAT END WE URGE THE DPRK TO FULFILL ALL OF ITS
INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS, INCLUDING THE NPT AND THE DPRK ' S
FULL-SCOPE IAEA SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT. WE ALSO URGE THE DPRK TO
COMPLETE THE NEGOTIATION OF AND BEGIN TO IMPLEMENT AN EFFECTIVE
BILATERAL INSPECTION REGIME UNDER THE NORTH/SOUTH NONNUCLEAR
DECLARATION.

FINALLY, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT STATES NOT MEMBERS OF THE
NPT. IT IS IMPORTANT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT UKRAINE AND KAZAKHSTAN
FOLLOW THROUGH ON THEIR COMMITMENTS TO JOIN THE NPT AS
NON-NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES AND IMPLEMENT THE REQUIRED FULL-SCOPE
IAEA SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENTS.

THE ROAD TO 1995

THE ROAD TO 1995 WILL INCLUDE NONPROLIFERATION SUCCESSES
AND CHALLENGES. IT WILL NOT BE A SMOOTH ROAD. THOROUGH
PREPARATIONS WITHIN THE U.S. ARE ESSENTIAL, AND ACDA, AS THE
LEAD AGENCY FOR THE 199 5 NPT CONFERENCE, IS CARRYING OUT THESE
PREPARATIONS VIGOROUSLY AND WITH THE COORDINATED SUPPORT OF
OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES.

A KEY ELEMENT OF THE U.S. PREPARATIONS IS EXTENSIVE,
WIDE-RANGING AND HIGH-LEVEL DIPLOMATIC CONTACT WITH OTHER NPT
PARTIES AROUND THE WORLD. THE CONSULTATIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD TO
DATE HAVE, IN ALMOST ALL CASES, BEEN USEFUL DIALOGUES ABOUT THE
NPT AND THE NONPROLIFERATION REGIME. WE HAVE FOUND MOST PARTIES
TO BE EAGER TO ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION OF THE OPTIONS FOR
EXTENSION AND WILLING TO CONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS FOR AN
INDEFINITE EXTENSION. THESE CONSULTATIONS WILL CONTINUE AND BE
EXPANDED BETWEEN NOW AND 1995 TO INCLUDE AS MANY NPT PARTIES AS
POSSIBLE.

APPENDIX
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD AND RESPONSES THERETO

I. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S NONPROLIFERATION POLICY

I. Another major nonproliferation objective outlined in President Clinton's
September 27th speech at the United Nations was reform of COCOM and the U.S. export
control system - to streamline and support U.S. exports while pursuing the battle against
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

What are your plans for reauthorization of the Export Administration Act?

ANSWER:

The Administration is drafting legislation with the goals of protecting our
nonproliferation objectives and streamlining the existing export control system.

By addressing a mix of foreign policy, national security, and economic security issues,
we believe the new EAA should reflect the realities of the post-Cold War world. To this
end, we are guided by the principles outlined in the Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee (TPCC) report as well as other Presidential directives. The goal is to strike an
appropriate balance -- one that sufficiently deals with our nonproliferation concerns as well
as our economic interests.

When will we see an Administration draft bill on EAA?

answt:r:

The Administration intends to transmit its EAA legislation not later than the end of
January. We want to give Congress a sufficient opportunity to review the draft bill, schedule
hearings, and begin the forma! debate in earnest next spring. Our goal is to pass new
legislation before the current EAA expires in June 1994. The Administration views this as
a high priority, and the Department of State, Commerce and other concerned agencies are
working very hard to draft a bill.

How do you plan to streamline export controls so that you can both promote
exports and tighten controls on dual-use exports?

ANSVVXR:

The President has repeatedly pledged to reform the export control process so that
it will effectively promote legitimate exports, which support our foreign policy and national
security goals, while further tightening controls on these dual-use items that pose serious
proliferation concerns. To this end, the Administration is committed to several specific
improvements: Guarantee that U.S. economic interests are given greater consideration in

export controls decisions; Eliminate unnecessary and ineffective export controls; Eliminate
bureaucratic delay and duplication in the licensing review and referral process; and
Consolidate the Department of State's export control functions within one bureau. Already,
the U.S., along with our allies in COCOM (the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral
Strategic Export Controls), have reduced the number of controlled dual-use items to focus
more effectively on the most sensitive technologies.

The U.S. has a reputation for having a cumbersome, complicated licensing
process that takes U.S. exporters much longer to secure licenses than
exporters in other industrialized countries. Is any consideration being given
to a proposal which has been around for several years of a One-Stop-Shop for
export control licensing - a single office to which an exporter could apply for
a license or for licensing information?

ANSWER:

A thorough review of the export control system is now underway in the context of the
Export Administration Act, which expires next year. We anticipate that this review will
address major suggestions for improving the system.

In the interim, the State Department has taken concrete steps to ensure timely,
thorough analysis of all export licensing requests. Specifically, the consolidation of State
Department review of Commerce Department dual-use licenses as well as munitions
licensing responsibilities and personnel into the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs is already
facilitating this effort. We are seeking to further reduce processing times to respond to a
major industry concern. At present, most State Department munitions licenses are
processed within ten working days.

2. President Clinton's nonproliferation initiative also promises a comprehensive
review of U.S. conventional arms transfer policy.

Which agencies are responsible for this review?

ANSWER:

The National Security Council is coordinating the Presidential review of conventional
arms transfer policy. The departments and agencies that will be involved in the drafting
process are State. DoD, Commerce, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the
Central Intelligence Agency.

How will this review differ from previous reviews -- by the Office of
Technology Assessment, the General Accounting Office, the Congressional
Budget Office, and the Congressional Research Service?

ANSWER:

The current review will take a fresh look at all aspects of our conventional arms
transfer policy. In so doing it will take into account previous reviews undertaken by other
agencies and Congressional bodies.

In the changed circumstances of the end of the Cold War, including substantially
changed markets for defense exports as well as new regional realities, our conventional arms
transfer policy should incorporate four principal goals: contributing to peace and security
in regions of the world, protecting U.S. troops while supporting our allies, restraining
proliferation of destabilizing weapons systems, and preserving our defense industrial base.
The policy review will focus on two broad lines of inquiry: the utility of enhancing
transparency and/or limiting supplies of conventional arms (either by region or type) and
the appropriateness of adopting measures to promote U.S. conventional arms exports.
Naturally, there will be some tension between these two lines of inquiry.

On the restraints/transparency side, there will be interagency examination of past
efforts at enhanced transparency, such as the P-5 process begun following the Gulf War and
the UN Arms Register, with an eye to expanding or revitalizing these efforts where practical.
The review will also examine the feasibility of new regimes aimed at limiting transfers by
type or region in a way that it consistent with the Administration's broader foreign policy
goals.

On export promotion, the review will examine the changing domestic and
international arms market, the relationship among exports, jobs and the defense industrial
base, and the proper role for the government to play to ensure a level international playing
field for U.S. defense firms. This will include the government's role in marketing, export
financing, and internationalization of U.S. defense procurement. Finally ,the review will
examine how efforts at cooperative defense conversion in the states of Central/Eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union could help achieve our conventional arms transfer
policy goals.

How will this review relate to existing legislation on arms exports, the Arms
Export Control Act, to arms registry efforts at the UN, to the Permanent Five
Talks on Arms Transfers, and to past Congressional efforts to legislate a
multilateral conventional arms restraint regime?

ansvvt:r:

We are reviewing the arms transfer policy in the context of all existing legislation
including the Arms Export Control Act and the Administration's proposed revision of the
Foreign Assistance Act. The review will also be guided by the Administration's commitment
to pursue regional arms control and multilateral arms transfer regimes including the UN
Register and the Permanent Five Talks. We will, of course, take into account the
recommendations expressed by Congress on such regimes in Title IV of the Foreign
Relations Act for FY 1992 and 1993. In so doing we will attempt to build on existing
efforts.

II. COCOM

1. One of the most difficult aspects of your COCOM-successor proposal, it seems
to me, will be getting international agreement on how to handle states such as Iran, Iraq,
Libya and North Korea.

What progress, if any, are you making in getting a unified policy on exports
to these states?

ANSWER:

Our basic goal is to design a regime that will take the place of COCOM to deal with
new threats to international and regional security. We have put forward a proposal for a
new flexible regime that has among its goals that of ensuring greater responsibility and
transparency with respect to arms sales and transfers of sensitive dual-use items, with a
particular focus on areas such as the Middle East and South Asia.

At the same time, our proposal has the further goal of ensuring that sensitive arms
and other dangerous items do not fall into unsafe hands, and that the new regime can
function effectively to deny access of such items to states whose behavior is a cause for
serious concern.

While discussions among our allies and with other prospective partners are
continuing, we have made some progress, though all of the understandings and agreements
reached to date will be subject to further review and approval by governments and reflected
in guidelines and procedures that are still being negotiated. That said, on a preliminary
basis, all of the seventeen industrialized democracies that participate in the COCOM
arrangement have accepted our position that the new regime should work to prevent the
acquisition of armaments and dual-use items for military end uses in regard to Iran, Iraq,
Libya, and North Korea, though they prefer that this understanding not be accentuated in
public.

We also have general acceptance by our partners that prospective members in the

new regime will need to accept (in addition to other criteria being developed) a moratorium
on military related shipments to these four. This is important as we seek to broaden
participation in the new regime to include other suppliers, such as the Visegrads, Russia and
other major states of the former USSR, and developing countries that have established
credible nonproliferation credentials. The underlying policy would be that access to
sensitive technology requires adherence to nonproliferation norms and responsible export
controls.

But there are differences. Europe's policy towards Iran involves a higher level of
trade in dual-use items for civil end uses than our own stricter policies. We will continue
to work to narrow the differences in this area -- and are pressing hard for procedures with
teeth to ensure transparency and prior notification concerning any such sales to these four
states as a function of the new regime. But it is unlikely in the near term that we will be
able to develop fully harmonized policies on all proposed civil end uses of dual-use items.
That is why we have put forward a proposal for a new regime that also provides a channel
in which we can continue to pursue our concerns in areas where there is a divergence of
views with partners - in particular, through ongoing discussion of the behavior of such states
and prospects for diversion of sensitive items.

III. CONVENTIONAL ARMS SALES

1. The United States has extensive military coproduction/codevelopment programs
with NATO partners, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Israel and Egypt. Such programs
spread the burden of the defense development programs, but also carry the risk of the
proliferation of U.S. -origin technologies.

How do you react to reports that Israel has engaged in the transfer of U.S.-
origin missile technologies to the People's Republic of China?

answt:r:

Israel has engaged in sales of military equipment to China. We have raised with the
Government of Israel concern over the possibility of Israeli sales of U.S.-origin technology
or hardwre to China.

When we receive reliable reports of possible diversions, we discuss them with Israel.
We report to Congress whenever required under Section 3 of the Arms Export Control Act.
We have emphasized in our discussions with Israel the need to deal with diversion questions,
because we do not want them to become an obstacle to the close collaboration on defense
issues which has always characterized our relationship.

If so, what steps does the Clinton administration intend to take so as to
preclude and deny such transfers in the future?

ANSWER:

The United States maintains strict policies with respect to the transfer of U.S.
technology, and we have continuously impressed upon our allies this fact. Therefore, when
we receive reliable reports of possible diversions, we discuss them with the appropriate
country. We report to Congress whenever required under Section 3 of the Arms Export
Control Act. We have emphasized in our discussions with allies the need to deal with
diversion questions, because we do not want them to become an obstacle to the close
collaboration on defense issues which ha always characterized our relationship.

What do you see as the proliferation risks of the U.S. -Japan FSX program,
and the U.S-Korea fighter program?

ANSWER:

The United States has engaged in military coproduction or codevelopment programs
only with countries that already have access to high levels of technology and where
cooperation does not threaten our national security interests, including proliferation
concerns. Additionally, we have focussed our efforts on projects that promote
interoperability and mutual security relationships with our allies. Japan and South Korea,
for example, are our closest friends and allies in North East Asia. Both relationships go
back more than four decades, and exemplify the importance of close security cooperation.

We have also taken steps with Japan and Korea to ensure that co-production and co-
development agreements and Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) stringently control the
transfer of sensitive technology and prevent the diversion of the technology to any
unauthorized purposes. Any new co-production and co-development programs will be
subject to the same close scrutiny. We judge the proliferation risks, therefore, to be low.

Could you provide the Committee with your assessment of all major U.S.
military coproduction and codevelopment programs, from the standpoint of
proliferation risks?

ANSWER:

countries' offensive, military capabilities, thereby jeopardizing regional stability. Nor have
we entered into cooperative agreements with countries that do not have effective export
control regimes to prevent the flow of sensitive items and technologies outside their borders.

Rather, we have focussed our efforts on projects that promote interoperability and
mutual security relationships with our allies. Japan and South Korea, for example, are our
closest friends and allies in North East Asia. Both relationships go back more than four
decades, and exemplify the importance of close security cooperation.

We have taken steps to ensure that co-production and co-development agreements
and Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) stringently control the transfer of sensitive
technology and prevent the diversion of the technology to any unauthorized purposes. Any
new co-production and c o-development programs will be subject to the same close scrutiny.

Because we do not have cooperative agreements with known or suspected
proliferators and include stringent controls in the agreements we do have, the fundamental
issues are less proliferation and national security concerns, than economic and commercial
issues i.e., the possibility that foreign industry could adapt or use U.S. military technology
to make gains in U.S. and world markets, to the disadvantage of U.S. industry. An issue for
consideration is the extent to which U.S.-origin technology could be adapted to commercial
uses to increase a foreign country's competitive position in various fields, including airliners,
business jets, and small space launch vehicles.

Also, even countries which strictly control their defense exports to third countries as
well as their own defense acquisitions could apply U.S. military technology to further
develop their own indigenous arms industry for export to the United States. These countries
could use U.S.-origin technology to become competitors to our domestic industry for the
provision of components, subsystems, and systems to the U.S. military. Growing U.S.
dependence on foreign sources, such as Japan and Korea, for critical military technology has
been raised as a concern in public debates, and this deserves attention as we develop these
relationships in the future.

In the past, we have sought MOUs and end-use assurances guaranteeing that military
technology would not be diverted to unapproved military projects or to the commercial
sector and ensuring respect for intellectual property rights for any patents that might arise
from the coproduction or joint research. We have sought to balance the potential
disadvantages of codevelopment and coproduction programs with the potential advantage
of flow-back of new technology which arises as part of the project. We are on our guard
against weighing technology flow-back too heavily when evaluating the merits of a program,
but recognize that coproduction and codevelopment projects can offer the opportunity for
U.S. industry to gain access to new technology as well as lower the cost and improve the
quality of military systems and equipment for our armed forces.

2. What is the Clinton Administration's policy regarding the transfer of U.S. defense
articles and services that have been declared excess?

ANSWER:

During this period of fiscal constraint and decreasing security assistance levels,
prudent transfers of EDA on a grant or low cost basis are a sensible, cost effective method
to assist friends and allies meet their legitimate defense requirements. Because of DOD
downsizing, substantial amounts of DoD equipment are likely to become excess to DoD
force requirements and thus available for sale or transfer to eligible countries in the next
few years.

Does the Clinton Administration have any plans to submit new policy
guidelines with respect to the transfer of U.S. defense articles and services
that have been declared excess?

ANSWER:

A full review of our conventional arms transfer policy is now underway. We expect
to complete that review and to issue new policy guidelines with respect to aU conventional
arms transfers early in 1994. Those criteria will apply both to transfers of excess defense
articles and to proposed transfers of new equipment.

What amount of U.S. defense articles and services do you believe will be
declared as excess over the next 2-3 years?

ANSWER:

Unfortunately, it is difficult for the military departments to project estimates for EDA
over the next few years since articles can only be declared excess after they are found to be
in excess of the Approved Force Acquisition Objective and Approved Force Retention
Stock. As well, budget uncertainties, realignment of the force structure, and other ongoing
reviews make projections of EDA availability even more problematical. Once force
reductions and mission realignments have stabilized, more accurate projections may be
possible.

Should the Committee anticipate a determination that F-16 fighter aircraft
will be declared excess in the near future?

ANSWER:

There are no plans to declare F-16's excess. Given the requirements for an excess

declaration, I do not anticipate such a move in the near future. There may, however, be
some non-excess F-16 sales to foreign governments from Air Force inventory.

rV. COUNTRY QUESTIONS

A. Iran

1. For a number of months now we have heard that the Administration is
considering the application of the Boeing company for a license to sell 20 Boeing 737
passenger aircraft to Iran.

What is the status of this matter?

ANSWER:

Due to the confidentiality provisions of Section 12(c) of the EAA, I cannot confirm
or deny the existence of any requests to sell aircraft to Iran. However, under the Iran-Iraq
Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992 (Title XVI of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1993), license applications for the export of commodities controlled for
foreign policy or national security reasons, including dual use items, cannot be approved for
Iran. The law provides for exceptions for contracts concluded before the effective date of
the Act and for issuance by the President of a national-interest waiver.

Has a decision been taken by the Administration?

ANSWER:

Due to the confidentiality provisions of Section 12(c) of the Export Administration
Act, I cannot confirm or deny the existence of any requests to sell aircraft to Iran.

If not, why has this decision been delayed for so long?

ANSWER:

Due to the confidentiality provisions of Section 12(c) of the Export Administration
Act, I cannot confirm or deny the existence of any requests to sell aircraft to Iran.

How would approval of the sale fit in with U.S. efforts to persuade its allies

not to sell dual use items to Iran?

ANSWER:

While I cannot confirm or deny the existence of any requests to sell aircraft to Iran
because of the confidentiality provisions of section 12(c) of the Export Administration Act,
the President has stated he intends to pursue a firm policy toward Iran. Current policy does
not allow for aircraft sales to Iran.

By the same measure, USG policy -- while stricter at this time than the policies of
our allies in respect to dual use transfers to Iran -- does not represent a total embargo on
all dual use sales to Iran, but does prohibit specific goods identified in law or regulation.

We continue to purse vigorously with our allies a coordinated approach -- including
for dual use exports -- to dealing with Iran's behavior, which on a number of issues is
completely unacceptable. This includes Iran's support for and sponsorship of terrorism, its
violent opposition to the Middle East peace process, its human rights abuses at home, its
quest for weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles and its efforts to subvert
moderate governments throughout the region.

What dual use items have been sold by or are in the pipeline from our allies?

ANSWER:

We do not have a complete or detailed picture of what dual-use items have bene sold
to Iran or are in the pipeline from our allies -- or from other producers. This is one of the
reasons why we have considered it important to advance our initiative for multilateral
coordination of dual-use items to states whose behavior is a cause for serious concern, such
as Iran. Under our approach, there would be transparency and multilateral coordination
among the major producers of dual-use technologies for such transfers on the basis of an
agreed list of items.

B. South Asia

1. Does the administration plan to ask for any changes in the Pressler amendment
[under which most U.S. aid to Pakistan is prohibited because of Pakistan's nuclear
activities]?

If not, does this indicate that you are resigned to the present impasse
in US-Pakistani relations?

ANSWER:

The discussion draft of the rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) omits all
country specific amendments, including the Pressler Amendment. In an effort to preserve
the President's flexibility in carrying out foreign policy, the FAA rewrite imposes generic
foreign aid sanctions on the basis of objectionable activities by other goverrunents (e.g., gross
human rights violations, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, etc.).

This does not indicate any weakening of the Administration's desire to check nuclear
proliferation in South Asia. Pakistan will continue to be subject to sanctions under the
Administration's proposal.

The FAA rewrite retains sanctions from the existing Foreign Assistance Act for
objectionable behavior in the nuclear field, drawn directly from the passages known as the
Glenn, Symington, and Solarz amendments.

In addition, as a matter of Administration policy, satisfaction of the Pressler standard
will remain the essential basis for exercising the national interest waiver in the rewrite and
for resuming economic and military assistance, or for any decisions by the U.S. Government
to sell or transfer military equipment or technology to Pakistan.

Should such a waiver for Pakistan be considered in the future, obviously, we would
consult with Congress.

We are not resigned to a state of impasse in South Asia with regard to the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

We believe there may be means to make significant progress in achieving our
nonproliferation objectives in that region. We believe the President's global
nonproliferation initiatives -- e.g., the CTBT and fissile material cutoff initiative -- may offer
us ways to move forward on this issue.

We will consult closely with Congress on our efforts to achieve the objective of
reducing and finally eliminating the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
in South Asia.

We will continue to work with Congress in completing the final submission of the
rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act.

2. The U.S.-Indian agreement on the Tarapur nuclear plant has expired.
Is India abiding by international safeguards at Tarapur?

ANSWER:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continues to apply safeguards at
Tarapur under an agreement entered into by the Government of India and the Agency to
continue safeguards on an interim basis until December 31, 1993, pending negotiation of a
new safeguards agreement for the post-December 31 period. The IAEA Board of
Governors is scheduled to review for approval in early December a draft of a new
safeguards agreement.

What steps have been taken to prevent this issue from becoming a
major diplomatic problem between India and the U.S.?

ANSWER:

The United States and India have been consulting closely on issues arising from the
expiration of the Tarapur Agreement, including during two days of discussions in mid-
September. We expect that these consultations will continue.

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 05982 085

ISBN 0-16-043685-0

9 780160"436857

90000

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "U.S. nonproliferation policy : hearing before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, November 10, 1993"

See other formats